Seismic Vulnerability Assessment

of Reinforced Concrete Buildings

Using Hierarchical Fuzzy Rule
Base Modeling
Solomon Tesfamariam,a) M.EERI, and Murat Saatcioglu,b) M.EERI

A reliable building vulnerability assessment is required for developing a

risk-based assessment and retrofit prioritization. Tesfamariam and Saatcioglu
(2008) proposed a simple building vulnerability module where the building
performance modifiers are in congruence with FEMA 154. This paper is an
extension of the building vulnerability assessment that include detailed
performance modifier in congruence with FEMA 310 that is represented in a
heuristic based hierarchical structure. Some of the input parameters are
obtained through a walk down survey and are subject to vagueness uncertainty
that is modelled through fuzzy set theory. A knowledge base fuzzy rule base
modeling is developed and illustrated for reinforced concrete buildings
damaged in the 1 May 2003 Bingl, Turkey earthquake.
DOI: 10.1193/1.3280115
INTRODUCTION
Seismic risk analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings can be undertaken by
integrating site seismic hazard, building vulnerability, and importance/exposure factor.
Tesfamariam and Saatcioglu (2008) have proposed a simple hierarchical risk assessment
tool that incorporates building performance modifiers in congruence with FEMA 154
(2002). This paper is an extension of the building vulnerability module by incorporating
elaborate structural deficiencies as specified in FEMA 310 (1998; Table 1). Discussion
and implementation of the overall risk assessment, by considering site seismic hazard
and building importance/exposure are outside the scope of this paper, and are provided
in Tesfamariam and Saatcioglu (2008).
The interactions between the structural deficiencies provided in Table 1 are complex,
and often full-fledged nonlinear structural analysis is performed. However, the complexity of building vulnerability assessment can be handled through a system based approach. A system is defined as an assemblage of components acting as a whole
(Meirovitch 1967). Building structures are essentially an assemblage of different components, e.g., beams, columns, slabs, and hence they can be described as a system. Each

a)

Assistant Professor, School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia | Okanagan, 3333 University
way, Kelowna, BC, Canada, V1 V 1V7, Tel: (250)-807-8185, E-mail: Solomon.Tesfamariam@ubc.ca
b)
Professor and University Research Chair, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0R6, Tel:
(613)-562-5800 ext 6129; Fax: (613)-562-5173, E-mail: murat@uOttawa.ca

235

Earthquake Spectra, Volume 26, No. 1, pages 235256, February 2010; 2010, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

236

S. TESFAMARIAM AND M. SAATCIOGLU

Table 1. Summary of building performance modifiers of FEMA 310 (1998)

C1: Concrete Moment Frames

Basic structural checklist

Building system

Load path
Adjacent buildings
Mezzanines
Weak story
Soft story
Geometry
Vertical discontinuity
Mass
Torsion
Deterioration of concrete
Post-tensioning anchors
Redundancy
Interfering walls
Shear stress check
Axial stress check

Lateral force resisting system

Connections diaphragms

Concrete columns

Supplementary structural checklist

Flat slab frames

Prestressed frame elements
Short captive columns
No shear failures
Strong column/weak beam
Beam bars
Column-bar splices
Beam-bar splices
Column-tie spacing
Stirrup spacing
Joint reinforcing
Joint eccentricity
Stirrup and hooks
Deflection compatibility
Flat slabs
Lateral load at pile caps
Diaphragm continuity
Plan irregularity
Diaphragm reinforcement at
openings

system in turn encapsulates different subcomponents and be described as a subsystem.

In this paper, a heuristic based building vulnerability assessment hierarchical structure is
proposed and illustrated in Figure 1.
Seismic risk assessment and decision making is subject to uncertainty (Wen et al.
2003). Klir and Yuan (1995) have broadly categorized uncertainty into vagueness and
ambiguity. The vagueness (imprecision) refers to lack of definite or sharp distinction,
whereas ambiguity is due to unclear distinction of various alternatives, which is further
divided into discord (conflict) and non-specificity. In a walk down survey, for example,
the evaluation is performed by an expert and the information is readily provided in lin-

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Level 1

Building vulnerability

Level 3

Level 2

Level 4

237

Increase in demand

Walls

Structural
walls

Relative strength
at joints

Masonry
walls

Short
column

Vertical
irregularity

Weak
story

Decrease in resistance

Redundancy

Soft
story

Torsional
irregularity

Plan
irregularity

Diaphragm
continuity

Construction
quality

Re-entrant
corners

Design
quality

Columns Diaphragms

Year of
construction

Joints

Problems of
adjacency

Structural degradation/
weakening

Year of
Code
construction enforcement

Floor
elevation

Spacing b/n
adjacent buildings

Damaged from Corrosion

previous EQ.

Figure 1. Detailed RC buildings vulnerability assessment.

guistic terms (e.g., compliant, noncompliant). As a result, this type of assessment is

prone to subjective judgments (Hadipriono and Ross 1991) and vagueness uncertainty
dominates the evaluation process. The uncertainty resulted from imprecision and vagueness can be handled through the fuzzy set theory (Zadeh 1965).
FUZZY RULE BASE MODELING
The basic theory of fuzzy sets was first introduced by Zadeh (1965) to deal with the
difficulties in quantifying the uncertainty where human intervention was significant. A
fuzzy set describes the relationship between an uncertain quantity x and a membership
function x, which ranges between 0 and 1. A fuzzy set is an extension of the traditional
set theory (in which x is either a member of set A or not) in that an x can be a member
of set A with a certain degree of membership x. Fuzzy logic maps qualitative judgement
into numerical reasoning. The strength of fuzzy logic is that it can integrate descriptive
(linguistic) judgement and numerical data and use approximate reasoning algorithms to
propagate the uncertainties.
Details of the fuzzy rules and aggregation process are provided in Tesfamariam and
Saatcioglu (2008). However, sufficient details required for the subsequent discussion are
provided below.
MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONS-FUZZIFICATION

The basic input parameters have a range of values that is knows as a universe of
discourse; say for vertical irregularity values may range between 0 to 100%. These values can be grouped into a linguistic quantifiers; e.g., low (L), medium (M), and high
(H). The process of assigning these linguistic values can be viewed as a form of data
compression, which is known as granulation (Zadeh 1994). The fuzzification process
converts the input values into a homogeneous scale by assigning corresponding memberships x with respect to their specified granularities (e.g., L, M, H). Membership
function essentially embodies knowledge base in the fuzzy system, and is a crucial part
of the fuzzy base modelling. At each level of the hierarchy (Figure 1), three-tuple mem-

238

S. TESFAMARIAM AND M. SAATCIOGLU

bership values are used. Different methods of assigning membership values or functions
to a fuzzy variable are available (Ross 2004), and herein a heuristic based method is
used.
FUZZY RULE BASE AND INFERENCING

For linguistic consequent parameters, Mamdani-type inferencing can be used (Mamdani 1977). Mamdanis inference mechanism consists of three connectives: the aggregation of antecedents in each rule (AND connectives), implication (i.e., IF-THEN connectives), and aggregation of the rules (ALSO connectives). The IF-THEN rules can be
established as

Ri: IF x1 is Ai1 AND x2 is Ai2 THEN y is Bi,

i = 1, . . . ,n

Thus, for each level of the hierarchy, a fuzzy rule base (FRB) has to be established.
Given the rule base and corresponding fuzzification, fuzzy inferencing is performed using Equation 1.
DEFUZZIFICATION

At each level of the hierarchy, the fuzzy output is converted into a crisp number
through a process of defuzzification. Several techniques are available for defuzzification,
e.g., Center of Area, Center of Maxima and Mean of Maxima (Klir and Yuan 1995). In
this paper, the weighted average method is used (Ross 2004):
N

ix x
z* =

i=1
N

ix
i=1

where z* is the defuzzified value, x the universe of discourse for the specified input parameter, and ix are the three-tuple fuzzy numbers.
HIERARCHICAL FUZZY RULE BASE MODELING

In a fuzzy based modeling, increase in number of input parameters results in an exponential increase in the number of rules. This is described as a curse of dimensionality,
and causes problems in computational efforts, real time performance, and system definition (Torra 2002). Several alternatives have been presented to deal with the curse of
dimensionality. These include; i) identification of functional relationships, ii) sensory fusion, iii) rule hierarchy, and iv) interpolation (Torra 2002). The rule hierarchy decomposes at the level of rules, whereas Magdalena (2002) showed decomposition at the level
of variables. For example, from Figure 1, it can be shown that increase in demand (Level
2) have five inputs; walls, relative strength at joints, vertical irregularity, redundancy, and
plan irregularity (Level 3). Using a three-tuples fuzzy number, the required numbers of
rules are 35 = 243. However, a rule hierarchy shown in Figure 2 can be developed by considering the functional relation of each performance modifier, consequently the required

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

239

Increase in demand

R3
Plan
irregularity

TR5
TR3
Walls

TR4
Vertical
irregularity

Redundancy

Relative strength
at joints

Weak story

TR2
Torsional
irregularity

R1
TR1

R2
Diaphragm
continuity

Re-entrant
corners

Short column

Soft story

Figure 2. Hierarchical fuzzy rule base decomposition for increase in demand.

number of rules is reduced to 832 = 72. The rule bases shown in Figure 2 are, R1 to R3, and
five intermediate rules, TR1 to TR5 (T is used to denote temporary rule). For example, the
structural weakness in the vertical elements, weak story and soft story are aggregated
through TR1. Output of TR1 is aggregated with short column effects through R1 to obtain
vertical irregularity.
With the hierarchical rule base structure, the concept of fuzzification and defuzzification becomes important. The three-tuple fuzzy set output can be defuzzified to obtain
a crisp singleton value. In turn, this singleton value is fuzzified into the next level. With
each defuzzification step, there is a potential for loss of information. Alternatively, the
three-tuple fuzzy sets can be used as input to the next FRB. However, this may generate
a potential for fuzziness explosion. In general the inclusion or exclusion of defuzzification step is the problem of finding a trade-off between loss and explosion of fuzziness,
respectively (Torra 2002). A defuzzification step is introduced at each level of the aggregation.
BUILDING VULNERABILITY
The hierarchical structure of Figure 1 shows different performance modifiers for
building vulnerability quantification. Building vulnerability to ground shaking and associated damage can be grouped into two categories (Saatcioglu et al. 2001); factors contributing to increased seismic demand (e.g., soft story frame, weak column-strong beam,
vertical irregularities); and factors contributing to reduced ductility and energy absorption capacity (e.g., construction quality, year of construction, structural degradation).
The increase in demand and decrease in resistance are inherent system properties and
can be described as endogenous parameters. The building vulnerability can also be af-

240

S. TESFAMARIAM AND M. SAATCIOGLU

b)

L
membership, ci

membership, SS

a)

0.5

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

0.5

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Strength irregularity factor, ci

Soft story, SSI

membership, SCE

c)

0.5

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Height ratio, SCE

Figure 3. Granulation of the basic risk items for vertical irregularity, a) soft story, b) strength
irregularity factor (weak story), and c) height ratio (short column effect).

fected through an exogenous parameter, such as problem of adjacency. The problem of

adjacency can simultaneously contribute to an increase in demand and decrease in resistance of the affected building.
INCREASE IN DEMAND

Vertical Irregularity (VI)

The vertical irregularity parameter reflects the presence of discontinuity and/or
abrupt change in strength and stiffness along the building height. The vertical irregularities considered in this paper are soft story (SS), weak story (WS), and short column effect (SCE). Granulation of the SS, WS, and SCE are shown in Figure 3a3c, respectively. Derivation of these granulations is discussed within each subsection.
Soft Story (SS)
Soft story (SS) is defined by stiffness of the lateral force resisting system in any
story being less than 70% of the stiffness in an adjacent story (above or below) or less
than 80% of the average stiffness of the three stories (above or below) (FEMA 310 1998;
FEMA 450-1 2004). Further, FEMA 450-1 (2004) specifies that extreme soft story is
said to exist when lateral force resisting system in any story is less than 60%. Reported
parametric analyses, Chintanapakdee and Chopra (2004), Das and Nau (2003), Magliulo
et al. (2002) and Al-Ali and Krawinkler (1998), for example, have quantified the impact

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Extreme Soft story

Soft story

Drift (%)

4
3
2

241

Das and Nau 2003

Magliulo et al. 2002
Al-Ali and Krawinkler 1998
Chintanapakdee and Chopra
2004

1
UBC Limit
0
0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.25

1.5

Soft story

Figure 4. Soft story and corresponding drift limits.

of SS on drift demand of the ground floor (Figure 4). From Figure 4, it can be shown
that the soft story limits fairly encapsulate the uniform building code (UBC) drift limit
of 0.004 (0.4%). The percentage of soft story shown in Figure 4 is used for the granulation of the SS (Figure 3a).
Weak Story (WS)
Weak story (WS) is defined by lateral force resisting system strength of any story is
less than 80% of the adjacent story strength (above or below). A weak story structure
with story strength less than 65% of the story above is prohibited (Al-Ali and Krawinkler 1998), and these limits are assigned based on judgment. The weak story is far more
damaging than soft story (Al-Ali and Krawinkler 1998). The potential for weak story
can be computed through strength irregularity factor ci (Ministry of Public Works
and Settlement 1998):

ci = Aei

e i+1

0.80

where Ae = effective shear area of any storey, and the indices i and i + 1 show two adjacent
floors.
Valmundsson and Nau (1997) and Al-Ali and Krawinkler (1998), among others,
have undertaken a parametric analysis on the impact of strength irregularity factor on
ductility demand, which are summarized in Figure 5. Figure 5 shows the relative comparison of ductility demands of weak first story building over regular building. From
Figure 5, it can be highlighted that for a small strength reduction, the ductility demand
is significant. Figure 5 also shows that the FEMA 310 (1998) 80% limit is not conservative. The strength irregularity factor shown in Figure 5 is used for the fuzzification of
weak story (Figure 3b).
Short Column Effect/Captive Columns (SCE)
FEMA 310 (1998) specifies that there shall be no columns at a level with height/
depth ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio of the typical columns at

242

S. TESFAMARIAM AND M. SAATCIOGLU

Weak story

Ductility demand ratio

6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
Valmundsson and Nau 1997

2.0

Al-Ali and Krawinkler 1998

1.0
0.0
0

0.25

0.5

0.75

strength irregularity factor ( ci )

Figure 5. Weak story and corresponding ductility demand ratio.

that level for life safety and 75% for immediate occupancy. Das and Nau (2003) have
performed parametric analysis on the impact of short column effect on the shear
demand/capacity ratio, and the results are illustrated in Figure 6. The Das and Nau
(2003) results corroborate the FEMA 310 (1998) Life safety and Immediate Occupancy
performance limits. The nominal height/captivated open space ratio is used in the fuzzification of short column effect (Figure 3c).
Relative Strength at Joints Weak Column-Strong Beam (RSJ)
The current capacity design practice dictates the strong column and weak beam design. This design practice ensures that a plastic hinge is formed at the beam, which will
enable the system to absorb the demand, and minimize the load transferred to the columns. From a field visual observation, the impact of relative strength at joints can linguistically be assessed and corresponding fuzzification is provided in Table 2.

Figure 6. Impact of short column effects on the maximum shear demand/capacity.

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

243

Table 2. Fuzzification of relative strength at joints

and re-entrant corners
Relative Strength at Joints
Negligible
Low
Moderate
High
Significantly high

0.9
0.7
0
0
0

0.1
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.1

0
0
0.5
0.7
0.9

Redundancy
Structural redundancy of a building can be defined as the number plastic hinges of
the structural system that must yield or fail to produce collapse (Bertero and Bertero
1999). zcebe et al. (2003) have quantified measure of redundancy through a normalized redundancy ratio nrr:

nrr =

Atrfx 1fy 1
Agf

where fx, fy = number of continuous frame lines in the critical story in x and y directions,
respectively; Atr = the tributary area for a typical column; Atr is taken as 25 m2 if fx and fy are
both greater than or equal to 3. In all other cases, Atr is taken as 12.5 m2.
The nrr values computed from the Dzce Database 1 and plotted in Figure 7a. Figure
7a show that with increase in observed damage, the nrr values decrease. The nrr values
are used for the fuzzification of redundancy (Figure 7b).
b)

a)

membership, nrr

1.2
1

nrr

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

Damage

0.5

0
0

0.5

1.5

Normalized redundancy ratio, nrr

Figure 7. Quantification of redundancy a) normalized redundancy ratio, b) granulation of normalized redundancy ratio.
1

SERU, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey; Archival Material from Dzce Database located at
website http://www.seru.metu.edu.tr.

244

S. TESFAMARIAM AND M. SAATCIOGLU

b)

membership, DC

membership, TI

a)

0.5

0
0

0.5

1.5

Torsional irregularity, TI

0.5

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Diaphragm continuity, DC

Figure 8. Granulation of the basic risk items used in a plan irregularity, a) torsional irregularity,
and b) diaphragm continuity.

Plan Irregularity (PI)

Three basic parameters are used to quantify plan irregularity (PI): torsional irregularity, diaphragm continuity, and plan building shape.
Torsional Irregularity (TI)
Torsional irregularity is introduced due to the lack of symmetry in plan, e.g., variation in perimeter strength-stiffness, false symmetry and mass eccentricities, which will
induce torsional induced force. FEMA 450-1 (2004) indicates that torsional irregularity
and extreme torsional irregularity exist when the computed maximum story drift (including accidental torsion) at one end of the structure is more than 1.2 and 1.4 times,
respectively, of the average of the story drift. These threshold values are used in the
fuzzification of torsional irregularity (Figure 8a).
Diaphragm Continuity (DC)
FEMA 450-1 (BSSC 2004) indicated that diaphragm discontinuity is said to exist
when diaphragms have abrupt discontinuities or variations in stiffness. Abrupt discontinuity is said to exist with the presence of a cut-out or open areas that is 50% of the
gross enclosed diaphragm area and variation in stiffness is said to exist when there is a
changes in effective diaphragm stiffness of more than 50% from one story to the next. This
problem is more severe with flexible diaphragms (Masi et al. 1997). Thus, in this paper, for
rigid diaphragms, diaphragm action is neglected. For the flexible diaphragms, the cut-out or
open areas are used in the fuzzification of diaphragm continuity (Figure 8b).
Re-Entrant Corners (REC)
The shape of the building has an effect on the vulnerability of plan layout to seismic
loads. Different symmetrical shapes (both in x and y direction) of buildings can be used
(, ). However, re-entrant corner buildings having irregular shapes (L, T, U, H, +),
may be prone to torsion and stress concentration. FEMA 450-1 (BSSC 2004) indicates
that irregularity due to re-entrant corners is said to exist when projection of the structure

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

245

Table 3. Fuzzification of structural walls

Structural walls

Bare frame
Lightly reinforced masonry walls
Heavily reinforced masonry walls
Lightly reinforced shear walls
Heavily reinforced shear walls

0
0
0.7
0.5
0.9

0.1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1

0.9
0.7
0
0
0

beyond a re-entrant corner is greater than 15% of the plan dimension of the structure in
the given direction. Linguistic assessment and fuzzification of re-entrant corners are provided in Table 2.
Walls
The moment-resistant frames resist lateral forces by bending and shearing of columns and beams, which are connected by moment connections. The columns are responsible for overall strength and stability and hence are critical elements. Performance of
bare frame RC buildings is often modified through the use of structural walls. These
structural walls can be categorized under structural (or shear) walls and masonry walls.
Shear walls resist seismic forces almost entirely when used in buildings. They typically act as vertical cantilevers and provide lateral bracing to the system, while receiving
lateral forces from diaphragms and transmitting them to the foundation. Shear wall
structures have been reported to behave well under moderate to strong earthquake excitations (Saatcioglu et al. 2001).
Many older frame buildings include masonry infill panels. Though unreinforced masonry behaves in a brittle manner and is regarded as undesirable construction material
for seismically active regions, they may act as shear walls in controlling deformations,
and may save non-ductile concrete frames until their elastic limit is exceeded. There
have been many cases of non-ductile frames that have survived strong earthquakes due
to the participation of masonry infill walls, especially when the wall-to-floor area ratio is
high.
From the walk down survey, the structural wall is linguistically evaluated and the
corresponding fuzzification is shown in Table 3.
DECREASE IN RESISTANCE (DR)

Construction Quality (CQ)

Quality of construction and material used is detrimental to ensuring the intended design protection is in place. Examples of poor construction quality are: construction error; improper construction procedures; lack of anchorage of beam and column reinforcement; poor concrete quality. Dimova and Negro (2005) have performed experimental
work to quantify the influence of construction deficiencies on the seismic response of
structures. They constructed two identical buildings where one was built with proper

246

S. TESFAMARIAM AND M. SAATCIOGLU

Table 4. Fuzzification of construction quality and design quality

Construction quality
Poor
Moderate
Good

0
0
0.9

0.1
0.5
0.1

0.9
0.5
0

construction design and detailing, and other building with construction deficiencies. As
a result of these deficiencies, the yield displacement and corresponding base shear force
has decreased by 27% and 12%, respectively. Similarly, ultimate story displacement and
maximum base shear force are reduced by 34% and 22%, respectively.
The construction quality is qualitatively determined and the corresponding fuzzification is shown in Table 4.
Design Quality (DQ)
Design quality is introduced to encapsulate the level of detailing considered in seismic design. Irrespective of the year of construction and in situ construction practice, the
level of design quality may be detrimental to the building survivability under earthquake. Proper design quality of the columns and/or shear walls, joints, and diaphragms
ensures better resistance to seismic loads.
The design quality is qualitatively determined linguistically and the corresponding
fuzzification is shown in Table 4.
Year of Construction (YC) and Code Enforcement (CE)
During the initial site investigation, the original design drawings may not be readily
available. The YC can be used to infer important information about the seismic design
code provision and consequently information about ductility, strength and detailing. The
transformation and fuzzification of YC is discussed in Tesfamariam and Saatcioglu
(2008). However, as it was observed from different reconnaissance reports (e.g., Turkey,
China), lack of code enforcement (CE) is prevalent. This necessitates consideration of
both the YC and CE. The linguistic descriptors and corresponding fuzzification for CE
are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Fuzzification of Code enforcement

Code enforcement
Lenient
Moderate
Stringent

0
0.3
0.9

0.1
0.5
0.1

0.9
0.2
0

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

247

Table 6. Damage from previous earthquake

Damage from
previous earthquake
Severe
Moderate
Negligible

Description

Severely damaged and standard repair

Moderate damage and standard repair
Any type damage and high standard repair, or no
damage

0
0.3
0.9

0.3
0.5
0.1

0.7
0.2
0

Structural Degradation and Weakening

Damage from Previous Earthquake (DPE)
Buildings damaged and repaired from previous earthquakes are prone to the same
type of damage (Penelis and Kappos 1997), due to substandard repair. Thus, in the walk
down survey and previously logged information, one of the information collected is the
level of damage incurred from previous earthquakes and the corresponding repair and
upgrade performed. The linguistic parameters used to quantify the severity of damage
and corresponding fuzzification are summarized in Table 6.
Deterioration (Corrosion)
Seismic evaluation is often carried out under the assumption that the structural components are sound and attention is given to detailing and other structural deficiencies.
Nevertheless, structures exposed to deleterious environmental conditions, e.g., parking
garages, are prone to deterioration with time. Consequently, capacity of structural elements may be compromised and the building can be severely damaged under moderate
seismic load. For seismic resistance, the criticality of each element may be ranked as
beams/girders, columns and joints, in an increasing order. The linguistic descriptors and
corresponding fuzzification are shown in Table 7.
Problem of Adjacency
Problem of adjacency is said to exist when two adjacent buildings with different
floor levels and small separation distances are subject to seismic loads. When the floor

Table 7. Damage due to deterioration

Deterioration (corrosion)
Extremely severe
Severe
Moderate
Good
Extremely good

0
0
0.3
0.7
0.9

0.1
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.1

0.9
0.7
0.2
0
0

248

S. TESFAMARIAM AND M. SAATCIOGLU

Figure 9. Granulation for spacing between two adjacent buildings.

heights of the two adjacent buildings do not coincide, differences in dynamic response
generate impact loads on the adjacent building columns that can introduce discontinuities of the lateral force resisting system. FEMA 310 (1998) specifies that buildings of
same height, with matching floor levels are exempt from this analysis. Thus, the potential for pounding between two adjacent buildings is determined by considering floor elevation level and spacing between adjacent buildings. A 4% spacing limit threshold is
specified for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy (FEMA 310 1998), which is used in
the fuzzification of problem adjacency (Figure 9) and linguistic constants are used for
the fuzzification of floor elevation is provided in Table 8.
CASE STUDY
On 1 May 2003, the city of Bingl, Turkey, was struck with an earthquake moment
of magnitude Mw = 6.4, with a consequent 168 casualties, 520 injury and several building
damages. The total economic loss to the Turkish national economy was estimated to be over
400 million U.S. dollars (Dogangn 2004). The observed damage level is classified into five

Table 8. Fuzzification of relative height of slabs

Spacing between two
corresponding slabs
Same level
Slightly different
Mid height

Description
Slabs of two adjacent buildings are at the
same level
Slabs are slightly off the same level, and not
at mid height
Slab of one building is at mid height of the
adjacent building

0.9

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.1

0.9

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

249

Table 9. Damage state definitions employed

Damage state
Light/none
Moderate

Severe/
collapse

Column

Beam

Visible flexural and

inclined hairline
cracks
Clear flexural and
shear cracks

Visible flexural
and inclined
hairline cracks
Wide flexural and
inclined cracks,
spalling of concrete

Slab of one building

is at mid height
of the adjacent
building

Large cracks, plastic

hinge formation, crushing
of concrete

Shear wall

Infill wall

Visible flexural
hairline cracks

Surface crack along

the boundaries

Visible inclined
hairline cracks and
clear flexural
cracks
Complete diagonal
cracks, spalling of
concrete, exposure of
reinforcement

Diagonal cross
cracks, separation
from the frame
Through cross cracks,
rupture of bricks

discrete states: none ND, light LD, moderate MD, severe SD, and collapse CD. Definition of each damage state is summarized in Table 9. Summary of the Bingl Database 2 is
given in Table 10.
The performance indicators shown in Figure 1 are collated from the Bingl Database
and other reported studies (Yakut 2004). The performance indicators are synthesized and
summaries are plotted in Figures 10 and 11. The field reconnaissance reports for the performance indicators shown in Figures 10a and 10d are provided at five discrete scales,
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, where 1 and 5 correspond to ND and CD, respectively.
Figures 10a10c show the building performance modifiers for NRR, WCSB, and the
presence of corrosion, respectively. As expected, with increasing level of observed damage the three modifiers show a decreasing trend. Figure 10d shows the potential for
pounding, however, the observed damage shows no discernible correlation.
Figures 11a and 11b show the relation between torsional irregularity and short column effect on prevalent damage, respectively. Figure 11c shows negligible impact of
diaphragm continuity. Of all performance modification factors, the lack of construction
quality shows the highest impact on the prevalent damage states (Figure 11d).
Initial screening of the data shows that the year of construction has a counter intuitive result such that the newer structures are showing more damages. One possible explanation is that newer buildings are designed for higher ductility, however, due to poor
construction practice and lenient code enforcement, the expected ductility capacity is
undermined. Whereas, the older buildings lack ductility, nevertheless, the stronger infill
material aid in resisting seismic induced load and prevent severe damages. Thus, the basic risk item identified under year of constructioncode enforcementis specified as
lenient.
Inputs to the basic risk items obtained from the Bingl Database are furnished in
linguistic and numeric values (Table 10). These inputs values are not as defined in the

SERU, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey; Archival Material from Bingl Database located at
website http://www.seru.metu.edu.tr.

250

Table 10. Summary of Bingl database for Tier 2 evaluation

Walls

BC-joint

Redundancy

SC

WS

SS

TI

DC

REC

CQ

BNG-10-3-10
BNG-10-3-3
BNG-10-4-4
BNG-10-4-6
BNG-10-4-7
BNG-10-4-9
BNG-10-5-1
BNG-10-5-11
BNG-10-5-2
BNG-11-2-3
BNG-11-4-1
BNG-11-4-2
BNG-11-4-4
BNG-11-4-5
BNG-3-4-1
BNG-3-4-2
BNG-3-4-4
BNG-5-5-1
BNG-6-2-8
BNG-6-3-1
BNG-6-3-10
BNG-6-3-11
BNG-6-3-12
BNG-6-3-4
BNG-6-4-2
BNG-6-4-3
BNG-6-4-5
BNG-6-4-7

RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCSW
RCSW
RCF
RCSW
RCF
RCSW
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCF
RCSW

2
5
2
2
2
5
5
2
5
2
2
0
2
5
2
5
2
2
5
5
2
2
0
5
0
0
5
5

0.536
0.408
0.167
0.291
0.136
0.227
0.171
0.326
0.134
0.770
0.024
0.172
0.026
0.343
0.154
0.161
0.196
0.101
0.214
0.183
0.615
0.319
0.225
0.436
0.025
0.057
0.377
0.026

No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No

Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Poor
Poor
Average
Average
Average
Good
Average
Average
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Average
Poor
Average
Average
Average
Poor
Average
Good
Average
Average
Average
Poor
Poor
Good
Poor

Damage: N = None, L = Light, M = Moderate, S = Severe, C = Collapse

YC
1975
1998
1976
1988
2002
1990
1988
1990
1999
1989
2000
1997
1998
1996
1990
1992
1991
1995

2003
2001
2003
1996
1996

Corrosion

Pounding potential

R/C

0
4
5
5
5
3
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5

5
5
0
0
0
0
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
0
5
5
0
5
3
5
5
5

M
M
M
L
L
N
M
L
L
M
S
S
M
L
L
N
N
L
S
M
N
N
L
L
S
C
N
S

S. TESFAMARIAM AND M. SAATCIOGLU

Building ID

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

a)

b)

Normalized Redundancy Ratio

0.8

nrr

Beam Column Joints

Beam-column joint

1.0

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

4
3
2
1
0

Damage

c)

Damage

d)

Corrosion

Pounding

Potential for pounding

Severity of corrosion

251

4
3
2
1
0

4
3
2
1
0

Damage

Damage

Figure 10. Building performance modifiers a) normalized redundancy ratio, b) beam column
joints quality, c) prevalent corrosion, and d) potential for pounding.

previous section. As a result, initial transformations into commensurable units are made.
Observation for WS, SS, SC, TI, REC, and DC are linguistically provided as yes for
present and no for not present. The transformation values selected are in congruence
with the prevalent universe of discourse. The transformation values for WCSB and corrosion are shown in Figure 12a and Figure 12b, respectively. Also, in Figure 12c the
transformation for potential for pounding is provided.
A step by step FRB aggregation through a hierarchical structure is provided in Tesfamariam and Saatcioglu (2008), and for brevity is not repeated here. For the Bingl database (Table 10 and hierarchical structure provided in Figure 1, the building vulnerability index IBV is computed and plotted in Figures 13 and 14, without and with the
consideration of the problem of adjacency, respectively. Both figures show that with increasing observed damage states, the IBV value increases.
CONCLUSIONS
Risk-based seismic assessment approach is proposed for prioritizing buildings for
retrofit and repair. Risk-base prioritization incorporates engineering decision making aspects, such as damage estimation, and societal value, tolerance to the consequence of

252

S. TESFAMARIAM AND M. SAATCIOGLU

a) 10

Torsional Irregularity

No

Yes

b) 10

Short columns

No

Yes

No. of Buildings

No. of Buildings

8
6

6
4

4
3

4
2

0
Light

Medium

Severe

Collapse

None

Light

Yes

8
7

5
4

4
1
0

Average

Poor

3 3

0 0

0 0

0
None

Light

Medium

Severe

Collapse

Damage states
Year of construction

None

Light

Medium

Severe

Collapse

Damage states

High code
Moderate code

No. of Buildings

Collapse

Good

1
0

Severe

Pre code

d) 10 Construction quality
No. of Buildings

No. of Buildings

No

Medium

Damage states

Diaphragms continuity

10

e) 10

1
0

Damage states

0
None

c) 12

2 2

1
0

0 0

0
None

Light

Medium

Severe

Collapse

Damage states

Figure 11. Building performance modifiers a) torsional irregularity, b) short columns effects, c)
diaphragm continuity, d) construction quality, and e) year of construction.

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

a)

253

b)
Negligible

Extremely good

Low

Good

Moderate

Moderate

High

Severe

Signif icantly high

Extremely severe
0

Condition score

Condition score

c)
Extremely severe
Severe
Moderate
Good
Extremely good
0

Potential for pounding

Figure 12. Transformation values a) relative strength at the joint, b) corrosion, and c) potential
for pounding.

failure. The risk-based prioritization is undertaken by integrating site seismic hazard

(SSH), building vulnerability, and importance/exposure factors. The complexity of
building vulnerability assessment is handled through a systems theory, where the complex problem is managed by a simple hierarchical structure. The vagueness uncertainty

Building Vulnerability I

BV

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1

Damage State

Figure 13. Building vulnerability for 1 May 2003 Bingl Earthquake (without problem of
adjacency).

254

S. TESFAMARIAM AND M. SAATCIOGLU

Building Vulnerability I

BV

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1

Damage State

Figure 14. Building vulnerability for 1 May 2003 Bingl Earthquake (with problem of
adjacency).

encountered as a result of subjective walk down survey are handled through a fuzzy set
theory, and fuzzy rule based modeling is used to incorporate decision makers attitude
and intuitive knowledge in the aggregation process using FRB modeling.
The proposed method is illustrated using the 1 May 2003 Bingl earthquake damage
observations. Results of the building vulnerability index show a correlation with observed damage, albeit extracted from limited data sets. The proposed method needs further calibration and refinement with existing data, and can also be augmented with analytical work. Furthermore, lateral strength index and other unique vulnerability
indicators (e.g., overhang ratio) need to be considered. Furthermore, the parameters indicated in Figure 1 are subject to different types of uncertainties, consequently, the FRB
need to be extended to incorporate different uncertainties and consider also different uncertainty propagation techniques.
REFERENCES
Al-Ali, A., and Krawinkler, H., 1998. Effects of Vertical Irregularities on Seismic Behaviour of
Building Structures. Rep. No 130, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford
University, Stanford.
American Society of Civil Engineers (FEMA 310), 1998. Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation
of Buildings-A Prestandard. Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
FEMA-310, Washington, D.C.
Applied Technology Council (FEMA 154), 2002. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazard: A Handbook. (Second edition), prepared by the Applied Technology
Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Bertero, R. D., and Bertero, V. V., 1999. Redundancy in earthquake-resistant design, J. Struct.
Eng. 125, 8188.
Building Seismic Safety Council (FEMA 450-1), 2004. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Part 1: Provisions (FEMA 4501/2003 Edition). Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

255

Chintanapakdee, C., and Chopra, A., 2004. Seismic response of vertical irregular frames: response history and modal pushover analyses, J. Struct. Eng. 130, 11171185.
Das, S., and Nau, J. M., 2003. Seismic design aspects of vertically irregular reinforced concrete
buildings, Earthquake Spectra 19, 455477.
Dimova, S. L., and Negro, P., 2005. Influence of construction deficiencies on the seismic response of structures, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34, 613635.
Dogangn, A., 2004. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003
Bingl earthquake in Turkey, Eng. Struct. 26, 841856.
Hadipriono, F. C., and Ross, T. J., 1991. A rule-based fuzzy logic deduction technique for damage assessment of protective structures, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 44, 459468.
Klir, G. J., and Yuan, B., 1995. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications, Prentice
Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 595 pp.
Magdalena, L., 2002. On the role of context in hierarchical fuzzy controllers, Int. J. Intell. Syst.
17, 471493.
Magliulo, G., Ramasco, R., and Realfonzo, R., 2002. Seismic behaviour of irregular in elevation plane frames, Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 219.
Mamdani, E. H., 1977. Application of fuzzy logic to approximate reasoning using linguistic
synthesis, IEEE Trans. Comput. 26, 11821191.
Masi, A., Dolce, M., and Caterina, F., 1997. Seismic response of irregular multi-storey buildings with flexible inelastic diaphragms, Struct. Des. Tall Build. 6, 99124.
Meirovitch, L., 1967. Analytical Methods in Vibrations, Prentice Hall, New York, 576 pp.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, 1998. Specification for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas; Part III-Earthquake Disaster Prevention, Government of the Republic of Turkey.
zcebe, G. M., Ycemen, S., Yakut, A., and Aydogan, V., 2003. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Procedure for Low- to Medium-Rise Reinforced Concrete Buildings, SERU Structural
Engineering Research Unit, REPORT NO. 2003 /2, 63 pp.
Penelis, G. G., and Kappos, A. J., 1997. Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures, E & FN
Spon, New York, 572 pp.
Ross, T. J., 2004. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, Second Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, UK, 650 pp.
Saatcioglu, M., Mitchell, D., Tinawi, R., Gardner, N. J., Gillies, A. G., Ghobarah, A., Anderson,
D. L., and Lau, D., 2001. The August 17, 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake-damage to
structures, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 30, 715737.
Tesfamariam, S., and Saatcioglu, M., 2008. Risk-based seismic evaluation of RC buildings,
Earthquake Spectra 24, 795821.
Torra, V., 2002. A review of the construction of hierarchical fuzzy systems, Int. J. Intell. Syst.
17, 531543.
Valmundsson, E. V., and Nau, J. M., 1997. Seismic response of building frames with vertical
structural irregularities, J. Struct. Eng. 123, 3041.
Wen, Y. K., Ellingwood, B. R., Veneziano, D., and Bracci, J., 2003. Uncertainty Modeling in
Earthquake Engineering, MAE Center Project FD-2 Report.
Yakut, A., 2004. Preliminary seismic performance assessment procedure for existing RC buildings, Eng. Struct. 26, 14471461.

256

S. TESFAMARIAM AND M. SAATCIOGLU

Zadeh, L. A., 1965. Fuzzy sets, Information Control 8, 338353.

, 1994. Fuzzy logic, neural networks, and soft computing, Commun. ACM 37, 7784.

(Received 11 November 2008; accepted 10 July 2009