Fragility Curves of Regular and Irregular

Moment-Resisting Concrete and Steel

Frames

Fadzli Mohamed Nazri, Chee Ghuan Tan

& Siti Nur Aqilah Saruddin

International Journal of Civil

Engineering

ISSN 1735-0522

Int J Civ Eng

DOI 10.1007/s40999-017-0237-0

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Iran University
of Science and Technology. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Int J Civ Eng
DOI 10.1007/s40999-017-0237-0
TECHNICAL NOTE
Fragility Curves of Regular and Irregular Moment-Resisting
Concrete and Steel Frames
Fadzli Mohamed Nazri1 • Chee Ghuan Tan2 • Siti Nur Aqilah Saruddin1
Received: 2 September 2016 / Revised: 5 May 2017 / Accepted: 13 June 2017
Ó Iran University of Science and Technology 2017
Abstract This study presents the fragility curves of regular
and irregular moment-resisting frames using different
heights, materials, and ground motion records. The con-
crete 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 prob-
ability of reaching OP and CP levels compared with regular
frames.
Keywords Regular frame  Irregular frame  Incremental
dynamic analysis (IDA)  Limit state  Fragility curve
& Fadzli Mohamed Nazri
cefmn7@gmail.com; cefmn@usm.my
Chee Ghuan Tan
tancg@um.edu.my
Siti Nur Aqilah Saruddin
qiladin28@gmail.com
1
School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti
Sains Malaysia, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
1 Introduction
When an earthquake strikes, seismic loss is mainly char-
acterized by building damage. Buildings constructed before
seismic resistance design has been introduced are the ones
most susceptible to damage. Building damage will have a
major impact on both country/region and its citizens,
because sudden earthquakes can immediately cause mas-
sive destruction. Thus, an evaluation of the seismic per-
formance of these buildings can provide some practical
reference in reducing any loss brought by earthquakes. In
addition, most buildings in Malaysia are designed using
irregular shapes. Hence, the criterion for regularity is also
discussed by referring to Eurocode 8 [1], as shown in
Fig. 1.
Setback irregularity is the most common type of irreg-
ular frames. Previous earthquake records show that irreg-
ular frames (with setback) suffer greater damage than
regular buildings [2]. Thachampuram [3] investigated
6-story irregular RC frames and developed fragility curves
in relation to Indian seismic zone V with medium soil
conditions. The frames were designed as ordinary moment-
resisting frames (MRFs) using the Indian Standard 1893
(2002) and Indian Standard 456 (2000). Habibi and Asadi
[4] performed an inelastic dynamic time-history analysis
on 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-story reinforced concrete MRFs with
different types of setback subjected to various earthquake
records. The relationship between the damage and drift
were derived by applying irregularity indices to account for
setback effects. Chintanapakdee and Chopra [5] investi-
gated the effect of vertical irregularity on the seismic
demands for 12-story frames using rigorous nonlinear
response history analysis using various ground motions.
Forty-eight irregular 12-story frames with strong columns
and weak beams were designed with three types of
123
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 1 Criterion for building regularity with BSI setback [1]
irregularity (i.e., stiffness, strength, and combined stiffness
and strength).
Typically, the story drift ratio is used as a damage
parameter for estimating the performance levels of building
structures. The story drift ratio can then be compared with
the performance levels suggested by Xue et al. namely,
operational phase (OP), immediate occupancy (IO), dam-
age control (DC), life safety (LS), and collapse prevention
(CP), with 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5% of story drift ratio,
respectively [6]. Ibrahim and El-Shami [7] described the
performance levels as follows:
OP The building is safe to occupy with minimal or
state no damage to the structural and non-structural
components.
IO The building has minimal or no damage to the
state structural but minor damage to the non-structural
components. Cleaning and repairs are needed
before the building can function again.
LS The structural and non-structural components
state have suffered extensive damage and should be
repaired.
CP The building has encountered total collapse with
state probable complete economic loss.
Another method for evaluating the performance level of
a structure is by developing the fragility curve, also known
as the seismic vulnerability curve. Fragility curves are
critical in representing the probability of damage state at
different levels given a specific ground motion intensity.
Accordingly, fragility is the conditional probability of a
123
Int J Civ Eng
member or the system reaching or exceeding a specific
damage state [8]. The fragility curve has been conceptu-
alized by many researchers to assess different types of
structure [6, 7, 9–12]. Finally, fragility curves can be used
as a decision-making tool for both pre- and post-earthquake
situations, and for crafting future local code provisions.
However, studies on the development of fragility curves for
steel and RC frames with the irregularity setback located in
low seismic region are still limited, such as in Malaysia. In
this study, the 3-, 6-, and 9-story steels and RC frames were
designed based on the sizes of Malaysian buildings and the
Eurocode. The selection of ground motion records was also
based on the local conditions in Malaysia.
2 Methodology
This section discusses the methodology for developing the
fragility curve based on incremental dynamic analysis
(IDA). Figure 2 shows the general flowchart of developing
fragility curves.
MRFs can be classified as either regular or irregular.
Based on the Eurocode design, the frames can be catego-
rized as low-, mid-, and high-rise frames for 3 stories, 6
stories, and 9 stories, respectively (Figs. 3, 4).
Select a case of
ground motion
records
IDA Analysis
Repeat the analysis with different storey height,
type of structure and ground motion
IDA Curve
Drift Limit State
Standard Deviation,
Mean, μ
σ
⎛ ln(PGA) − μ ⎞
P[D / PGA] = Φ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ σ ⎠
Fragility Curve
Fig. 2 General flowchart of fragility curve development
 Author's personal copy
Int J Civ Eng

By contrast, the moment-resisting steel frame (MRSF)

was designed following Eurocode 3 (EC3) [14] and EC8
standards. Steel grade fy was assumed as S275 for the steel
frame structure. Table 4 and Table 5 present the dimen-
sions of the frame designs for regular and irregular MRSF,
respectively.
As a process, fragility curves were developed from IDA
curves. IDA, a method for dynamic analysis, was used to
estimate the performance of structures under seismic loads.
3m The most important process of an IDA is the selection of
6m ground motions. Najafi and Tehranizadeh [15] explained
several methods for selecting records and recommended
Fig. 3 Regular MRFs processes for scaling ground motions.
However, choosing the appropriate number of motions
is still a major issue and requires further research. Based on
UBC 1997, IBC 2000, FEMA-356, EC8, and ASCE 2006,
the recommended lowest ground motion is 3 or 7 for
obtaining the mean and median values. Thus, for this study,
three sets of ground motion records were used, as shown in
Table 6.
The most damaging earthquake experienced by Malay-
sia is the Ranau earthquake, which occurred on June 5,
2015. The Ranau earthquake was described by the United
States Geological Survey as a 10-km deep strike-slip
3m
earthquake with 6.0 magnitude. To simulate similar ground
6m motions, three other strike-slip earthquakes with varying
magnitudes (5.5–6.61 Mw) and depths (10.21–17.22 km)
Fig. 4 Irregular MRFs
were selected for the IDA, as shown in Table 6.
Ground motion records were sourced from the websites
In this study, soil class A with peak ground acceleration
of the NGA database of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
(PGA) was considered where agr was assumed as 0.5 g or
Research Center, Consortium of Organizations for Strong-
5 m/s2. For the regular MRF with medium ductility class,
Motion Observation Systems, and K-Net. Other records
importance value was set to 1 and behavior factor q was 4.
were obtained from the websites cited by Silva et al. [16],
For the irregular frame, EC8 was used for the behavior
such as from the European Strong-Motion Database,
factor, the value of which was 80% of that for the regular
French Accelerometric Network, and Swiss Seismological
frame.
Service. From these databases, the appropriate ground
For the moment-resisting concrete frame (MRCF), the
motions were selected. Different elastic response spectra
designs were based on the Eurocode 2 (EC2) [13] and EC8
(i.e., 0.4–2.0 g at 0.4 g increments) were then developed
[1] standards. Several assumptions were made during the
based on the type of ground motion.
design: the compressive strength of the concrete was 30 N/
Subsequently, the ground motion records were scaled for
mm2; the yield stress of the reinforcing steel was 460 N/
each developed elastic response spectrum to match the ground
mm2; and the damping ratio was 5%. Table 1 shows the
motion characteristics with soil type, as shown in Fig. 5.
fundamental periods of the three frames.
Scaling was based on frame fundamental period T1, and PGA
Tables 2 and 3 list the sizes of the beams and columns
was increased by 0.4 g until it reached 2.0 g for all ground
for both regular and irregular MRCFs.
motions (i.e., the ‘‘increment’’ part of the dynamic analysis).
The scaling process is important when observing struc-
tural performance, from original form to collapse or fail. In
Table 1 Fundamental period
this study, the IDA was stopped at 2.0 g, because structures
No. of stories Regular frame Irregular frame have already become unstable or have collapsed at this
stage. The scale factor used for the IDA was based on
3 0.39 0.31
SAP2000.
6 0.66 0.57
Based on the IDA result, the PGA–story drift ratio curve
9 0.89 0.70
was then plotted. Imperial Valley, San Fernando, and

123
 Author's personal copy
Int J Civ Eng

Table 2 Size of beams and

No. of stories 3 6 9
columns for regular MRCFs
Section Beam Column Beam Column Beam Column

Size (mm) 350 9 500 500 9 500 350 9 500 500 9 500 350 9 500 500 9 500
Reinforcement 5T16 5T32 5T16 5T32 5T16 6T32
Shear link 8 mm @ 150 c/c 8 mm @ 150 c/c 8 mm @ 150 c/c

Table 3 Size of beams and

No. of stories 3 6 9
columns for irregular MRCFs
Section Beam Column Beam Column Beam Column

Size (mm) 350 9 500 400 9 400 350 9 500 400 9 400 350 9 500 400 9 400
Reinforcement 4T16 3T20 5T16 4T20 5T16 4T20
Shear link 8 mm @ 150 c/c 8 mm @ 150 c/c 8 mm @ 150 c/c

Table 4 Size of beams and columns for regular MRSFs

No. of stories 3 6 9
Section Beam Column Beam Column Beam Column

Size (mm) 254 9 146 9 37 203 9 203 9 86 254 9 146 9 37 203 9 203 9 86 254 9 146 9 37 203 9 203 9 86

Table 5 Size of beams and columns for irregular MRSFs

No. of stories 3 6 9
Section Beam Column Beam Column Beam Column

Size (mm) 254 9 146 9 37 203 9 203 9 86 305 9 127 9 37 203 9 203 9 86 305 9 127 9 37 203 9 203 9 86

Table 6 Selected records for

Earthquake Year Station Magnitude (Mw) Rjb (km) Mechanism
ground motion
Imperial valley 1953 El-Centro Array #9 5.50 15.11 Strike-slip
San Fernando 1971 Lake Hughes 6.61 17.22 Strike-slip
Coyote Lake 1979 Gilroy Array #1 5.74 10.21 Strike-slip

Coyote Lake were labeled RSN18, RSN71, and RSN146,

Fig. 5 Scaling of ground motion records
respectively. As mentioned earlier, fragility curves can be
developed from IDA curves. The curve for the story drift
ratio can also be obtained from the IDA curves; specifi-
cally, the story drift ratio can be calculated by dividing the
displacement by the total height of a building [17].
Finally, the IDA curves were compared with the Per-
formance-based Seismic Design, where performance is
classified into five categories (i.e., OP, IO, DC, LS, and
CP). In the design, every load limit has its maximum story
drift ratio limit. Xue et al. [6] suggested the associated
maximum story drift ratio limit for the respective cate-
gories (Table 7).

123
 Author's personal copy
Int J Civ Eng

Table 7 Maximum story drift ratio limit (%) [3] 3 Results and Discussion
Limit state Story drift ratio (%)
3.1 IDA Results
OP 0.5
IO 1.0 Figure 6 shows the IDA curves for MRCF. As mentioned
DC 1.5 earlier, three types of ground motion were used in this
LS 2.0 study, namely, Imperial Valley, San Fernando, and Coyote
CP 2.5 Lake, which were labeled RSN18, RSN 71, and RSN146,
respectively.
Once all PGA values for each limit state were obtained, The mean IDA was calculated to evaluate the perfor-
the corresponding mean and standard deviations were mance of the structures (Fig. 7). Based on the graphs, the
calculated. For this study, Eq. (1), which has already been patterns for the 3-, 6-, and 9-story MRCFs were similar.
simplified by Ibrahim and El-Shami [5], was used to obtain However, in the DC state, the PGA differences of the
fragility curves. regular and irregular frames for the 3- and 9-story struc-
  tures were slightly small at 7 and 1%, respectively; for the
lnðPGAÞ  l
P½D/PGA ¼ U ; ð1Þ 6-story MRCF, the difference was relatively large at
r
approximately 27%. The PGA values indicate that the
where D damage, U standard normal cumulative distribu- regular frame performs better than the irregular frame,
tion, l mean, and r standard deviation of the natural log- which might be related to the selected size and ground
arithm of PGA. motion. For example, a regular frame for a 3-story MRCF
All the calculated parameters for Eq. (1) are tabulated in will need 1.50 g to achieve the DC limit state, whereas
Tables 8 and 9. only 1.40 g is required for an irregular 3-story MRCF.

Table 8 Parameters of the log-

No. of stories OP IO DC LS CP
normal distribution for MRCFs
l r l r l r l r l r

Regular frame
3 -0.14 0.39 0.21 0.20 0.42 0.11 0.51 0.08 0.59 0.05
6 -0.32 0.11 0.29 0.04 0.45 0.03 0.48 0.01 0.50 0.02
9 -0.40 0.14 0.13 0.32 0.47 0.05 0.53 0.03 0.06 0.03
Irregular frame
3 -0.28 0.42 0.08 0.20 0.35 0.04 0.48 0.06 0.56 0.05
6 -0.34 0.07 -0.01 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.51 0.03 0.53 0.02
9 -0.37 0.23 0.18 0.41 0.32 0.19 0.51 0.03 0.53 0.02

Table 9 Parameters of the log-

No. of stories OP IO DC LS CP
normal distribution for MRSFs
l r l r l r l r l r

Regular frame
3 -1.11 1.32 -0.44 0.94 -0.17 0.71 -0.12 0.61 0.23 0.59
6 -0.23 0.05 0.47 0.15 0.51 0.10 0.56 0.09 0.61 0.09
9 -0.40 0.41 0.27 0.21 0.42 0.13 0.50 0.10 0.63 0.09
Irregular frame
3 -0.65 1.23 -0.26 0.84 -0.05 0.53 -0.10 0.66 0.24 0.47
6 -0.14 0.13 0.33 0.13 0.48 0.10 0.58 0.08 0.64 0.04
9 0.04 0.42 0.36 0.28 0.39 0.23 0.52 0.12 0.59 0.06

123
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 6 IDA curves for MRCF
Figure 8 shows the IDA curves for the regular and
irregular MRSFs, whereas Fig. 9 shows the mean IDAs.
From the graphs, the regular MRSFs show better perfor-
mance compared with the irregular frames. The story drift
ratio difference at 0.8 g PGA for the 3-story MRSF shows
a larger difference of 38% between the regular and irreg-
ular frames. Overall, the pattern of the IDA curves differed
123
Int J Civ Eng
for each ground motion, such that the pattern for the
3-story curve was a slightly wavy compared with those for
the 6- and 9-story curves. Dissimilar patterns suggest that
controlling damage is less probable for stronger ground
motion (i.e., decreased DC for increased intensity), which
contradicts the lower intensity measures obtained by Kirçil
and Polat [18].
 Author's personal copy
Int J Civ Eng
Fig. 7 Mean IDA for MRCFs: a 3-story frame, b 6-story frame, and c 9-story frame
The 6-story regular and irregular frames in the LS state
exhibited the same 1.80 g PGA. For the 9-story regular and
irregular frames in the CP state, the frame obtained the
same 1.90 g PGA.
3.2 Fragility Curve
Fragility is defined as a member of a system’s conditional
probability exceeding a certain limit state under the given
demand variables. Accordingly, a fragility curve esti-
mates the extent of the damage of a system. Fragility
curves are based on two aspects, namely, intensity mea-
sure [spectral acceleration (Sa) and PGA] and damage
measure (story drift ratio, plastic hinges, and cracks).
Geometry and type of analysis of the structure are also
considered in fragility curve development. Consequently,
the different types of structure and ground motion affect
the shape of the curve.
In this study, seismic fragility was presented as the
damage probability curve (fragility curve). After all fragi-
lity curves were plotted, the performance of structures was
determined for damage probability. A fragility curve for a
low-rise regular MRCF is shown in Fig. 10.
In the example, the probability for the OP level is 0%
when the PGA is 0.2 g, which is considered as a weak
ground motion; in contrast, probability is 98% when
exposed to a strong ground motion at 1.8 g. For the CP
level, probability starts at 1.6 g and reaches 100% when
PGA is more than 2.0 g. The fragility curve can thus
provide insights about the condition of the structure from
0.2 to 2.0 g based on the percentage of story drift ratio. The
loss of damage can also be predicted using the fragility
curve.
In this study, the fragility curves were compared
according to the different types of regularity. Figures 11,
12 and 13 show the fragility curves of MRCFs for the 3-,
6-, and 9-story regular and irregular frames, respectively.
The aforementioned figures compare regular frames
with irregular frames. When weak ground motions were
exposed to 0.2 g, the damage probability was 0% for both
the regular low rise and the irregular frame. At the CP
level, the probability was 100% when ground motion was
more than 2.0 g for the regular frame and 1.9 g for the
irregular frame.
For the OP level of the 6-story frame, the probability
was 100% for both regular and irregular frames when
123
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 8 IDA curves for MRSFs
ground motions were 1.0 and 1.7 g, respectively. Mean-
while, for the CP level, 100% probability was achieved
when ground motions were 1.7 and 1.8 g for the regular
frame and irregular frame, respectively. For the 9-story
frame, when the PGA was 0.6 g, the probabilities of OP
performance were 20% for the regular frame and 24% for
the irregular frame. A 100% probability of reaching and
exceeding the CP level was reached when ground motions
123
Int J Civ Eng
were more than 1.9 and 1.8 g for the regular frame and
irregular frame, respectively.
Overall, the graphs show that irregular frames provide
poorer performance compared with regular frames when
low-, mid-, and high-rise MRCFs are exposed to weak or
strong ground motions. Figures 14, 15, 16 present the
curves for the 3-, 6-, and 9-story regular and irregular
frames, respectively.
 Author's personal copy
Int J Civ Eng

Fig. 9 Mean IDA for MRSFs: a 3-story frame, b 6-story frame, and c 9-story frame

Fig. 10 Fragility curve for a low-rise regular MRCF Fig. 11 Fragility curves for 3-story regular and irregular MRCFs

When the PGA was 0.4 g, the probabilities for the OP

level was approximately 55% for the regular frame and
40% for the irregular frame (Fig. 14). At the CP level, the
probabilities were 2% for the regular frame and 0% for the
irregular frame. When the PGA was increased to 1.8 g, the
probabilities of reaching or exceeding the OP level for the
regular frame and irregular frame were approximately 90
and 84%, respectively. For the CP level, the probabilities
were 70% for the regular frame and 76% for the irregular
frame.
However, when PGA was increased to 0.8 g for the
6-story MRSF, the probabilities of the OP level for the
regular frame and irregular frame were 40 and 20%,
respectively. At the CP level, the probability for both
frames was 0%. When the PGA was increased to 2.0 g, the
probability of reaching and exceeding the OP level was
100% for both frames. For the CP level, the probabilities
were approximately 84 and 90% for the regular and
irregular frames, respectively. For the 9-story frame, the

123
 Author's personal copy
Int J Civ Eng

Fig. 12 Fragility curves for 6-story regular and irregular MRCFs Fig. 15 Fragility curve for 6-story regular and irregular MRSFs

Fig. 13 Fragility curves for 9-story regular and irregular MRCFs Fig. 16 Fragility curve for 9-story regular and irregular MRSFs

4 Conclusion

This study was aimed at developing fragility curves for

regular and irregular frames used for concrete and steel low-,
mid-, and high-rise structures. The designs were based on
EC2, EC3, and EC8. In developing the fragility curves, IDA
was initially conducted to obtain the PGA–story drift ratio
curve. Then, three sets of ground motion records were used
for the analysis. Subsequently, the IDA curves were com-
pared with the limit state to obtain the mean and the standard
deviation of the PGAs. The fragility curves for both regular
and irregular frames were developed. The following con-
clusions can be drawn from this research:
Fig. 14 Fragility curve for 3-story regular and irregular MRSFs
1. The IDA curve for regular frames was compared with
probability of reaching the CP level was 100% when the that of irregular frames. The IDA curve under NF
PGA was increased further to 2.1 g for both the regular and ground motions shows that regular frames perform
irregular frames. better compared to irregular frames for low-, mid-, and
Based on observations, the patterns of the fragility high-rise structures for both concrete and steel mate-
curves differed for the concrete frames. For the steel rial. A regular 3-story MRCF can sustain up to 1.70 g
frames, the regular frames showed higher probability per- before collapsing compared to irregular frames, which
centages at the OP and CP levels compared with the can only sustain 1.80 g. For 6-story MRCF, regular
irregular frames. and irregular frames require 1.50 and 1.10 g to achieve

123
 Author's personal copy
Int J Civ Eng
a DC state, respectively. For 9-story MRCF, regular
and irregular frames require 1.70 and 1.60 g to achieve
a collapsed state, respectively. Meanwhile, for frames
made using steel material, the difference between the
IDA curves for regular and irregular frames is
relatively significant; for the analysis under the FF
ground motions, regular frames perform well for
MRCF and MRSF.
2. The fragility curves were developed for regular and
irregular MRCF and MRSF based on specific structural
performance level. Fragility curve is a unique curve
because specific buildings will have its own curve. In
the comparison of fragility curves between regular and
irregular frames based on the ground motion records at
NF for low-rise MRCF, the highest probability of
reaching and exceeding the performance levels was
observed in irregular frames at lower PGA. However,
for mid-rise MRCF, regular frames showed a lower
PGA as they achieved 100% OP and CP levels at PGA
1.0 and 1.70 g, respectively. For high-rise MRCF,
irregular frames performed less compared to regular
frames. However, for all MRSF stories of MRSF,
regular frames provide a high percentage of probability
curves at the performance levels. Under FF ground
motions, irregular MRCF frames for all story types
provide high probability of reaching the performance
levels. However, for MRSF, regular frames show
higher probability of reaching or exceeding the
performance levels than irregular frames.
Acknowledgements 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).
References
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 Stan-
dards Institution
2. Varadharajan S, Sehgal V, Saini B (2015) Fundamental time
period of RC setback buildings. Concr Res Lett 5(4):901–935
3. Thachampuram SJ (2014) Development of fragility curves for an
RC frame. Phd thesis. Department Of Civil Engineering National
Institute Of Technology, Rourkela, 2014
4. Habibi A, Asadi K (2016) Development of drift-based damage
index for reinforced concrete moment resisting frames with set-
back. Int J Civ Eng 15(4):487–498
5. Chintanapakdee C, Chopra AK (2004) Seismic response of ver-
tically irregular frames: response history and modal pushover
analyses. J Struct Eng 130(8):1177–1185
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):1535–1547
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):213–223
8. Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H (2005) Global collapse of frame struc-
tures under seismic excitations. Pacific earthquake engineering
research center, Berkeley
9. Hwang HH, Huo J-R (1994) Generation of hazard-consistent
fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 13(5):345–354
10. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim H-K, Kim S-H (2000) Nonlinear
static procedure for fragility curve development. J Eng Mech
126(12):1287–1295
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):96–107
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 10:42–51
13. BSI (2004a) Eurocode 2: design of concrete structure—part 1-1:
general rules and rules for buildings. London: British Standards
Institution
14. BSI (2005) Eurocode 3: design of steel structures: part 1-1,
general rules and rules for building. London: British Standards
Institution
15. Najafi LH, Tehranizadeh M (2015) Ground motion selection and
scaling in practice. Period Polytech Civil Eng 59:233
16. Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H, Pinho R, Sousa R (2014) Eval-
uation of analytical methodologies used to derive vulnerability
functions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(2):181–204
17. Nazri FM, Pang YK (2014) Seismic performance of moment
resisting steel frame subjected to earthquake excitations. Front
Struct Civ Eng 8(1):19–25
18. Kirçil MS, Polat Z (2006) Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C
frame buildings. Eng Struct 28(9):1335–1345
123