Skip to main content
Log in

Rigorous versus less-demanding fragility relations for RC high-rise buildings

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

Abstract

Analytical seismic scenario-based probabilistic fragility relations form the spine of earthquake risk assessment and mitigation of RC high-rise wall buildings. In this study, a framework is proposed to develop both rigorous (refined) and less-demanding (cheaper) fragility relations for such structures. Multi-record incremental dynamic analysis is employed using a new scalar intensity measure and net inter-storey drift as a consistent global damage measure for varying heights of buildings. To illustrate the framework, a 30-storey wall building located in a multiple-scenario earthquake-prone region is analysed. The refined fragility sets are derived using 40 real earthquake records representing two seismic scenarios, while the proposed methodology to develop less-demanding seismic scenario-based fragility relations employs a considerably lower number of earthquake records. In this methodology, a new record selection criterion and a fragility curve tolerance factor are introduced. Finally, the two fragility relation sets for the reference structure are developed, assessed, and compared to provide insights into their features and accuracy. Using the proposed methodology, the study revealed that fairly reliable seismic scenario-based fragility sets can be developed for RC high-rise buildings with a significant reduction in computational time and efforts. The proposed framework is generic and can be implemented to deriving refined and less-demanding fragility relations for RC high-rise buildings of different configurations and structural systems.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdalla JA, Al-Homoud AS (2004) Seismic hazard assessment of United Arab Emirates and its surroundings. J Earthq Eng 8:817–837

    Google Scholar 

  • ACI (2014) Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary. American Concrete Institute Committee 318, Farmington Hills, MI

  • Aldama-Bustos G, Bommer JJ, Fenton CH, Stafford PJ (2009) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for rock sites in the cities of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Ra’s Al Khaymah, United Arab Emirates. Georisk 3:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Haddad M, Siddiqi GH, Al-Zaid R, Arafah A, Necioglu A, Turkelli N (1994) A basis for evaluation of seismic hazard and design criteria for Saudi Arabia. Earthq Spectra 10:231–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali MM, Moon KS (2007) Structural developments in tall buildings: current trends and future prospects. Archit Sci Rev 50:205–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Alwaeli W (2019) Framework for seismic vulnerability assessment of RC high-rise wall buildings. The University of Sheffield, UK

  • Alwaeli W, Mwafy A, Pilakoutas K, Guadagnini M (2014) Framework for developing fragility relations of high-rise RC wall buildings based on verified modelling approach. Paper presented at the Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, Turkey

  • Alwaeli W, Mwafy A, Pilakoutas K, Guadagnini M (2015) Seismic scenario-structure-based performance criteria for RC high-rise wall buildings. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Geophysics, Al Ain, UAE

  • Alwaeli W, Mwafy A, Pilakoutas K, Guadagnini M (2016) Performance criteria for RC high-rise wall buildings exposed to varied seismic scenarios. Paper presented at the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (16WCEE), Santiago, Chile

  • Alwaeli W, Mwafy A, Pilakoutas K, Guadagnini M (2017a) A methodology for defining seismic scenario-structure-based limit state criteria for RC high-rise wall buildings using net drift. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:1325–1344

    Google Scholar 

  • Alwaeli W, Mwafy A, Pilakoutas K, Guadagnini M (2017b) Multi-level nonlinear modeling verification scheme of RC high-rise wall buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 15:2035–2053

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Sigbjörnsson R, Berge-Thierry C, Suhadolc P, Costa G, Smit MP (2004) Dissemination of European strong-motion data, vol 2, using storng-motion dataspace navigator, CD ROM collection. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK

  • ASCE/SEI-41 (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA

  • ASCE/SEI-7 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA

  • Azarbakht A, Dolšek M (2007) Prediction of the median IDA curve by employing a limited number of ground motion records. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:2401–2421

    Google Scholar 

  • Azarbakht A, Dolšek M (2011) Progressive incremental dynamic analysis for first-mode dominated structures. J Struct Eng 137:445–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Bae S, Mieses AM, Bayrak O (2005) Inelastic buckling of reinforcing bars. J Struct Eng 131:314–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW, Cornell CA (2004) Choice of a vector of ground motion intensity measures for seismic demand hazard analysis. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, vol 3384

  • Beyer K, Bommer JJ (2007) Selection and scaling of real accelerograms for bi-directional loading: a review of current practice and code provisions. J Earthq Eng 11:13–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini M (2008) Improved ground motion intensity measures for reliability-based demand analysis of structures. University of Bologna

  • Bojórquez E, Iervolino I (2011) Spectral shape proxies and nonlinear structural response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:996–1008

    Google Scholar 

  • Carballo JE, Cornel CA (2000) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis: spectrum matching and design. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford

  • Celik OC, Ellingwood BR (2010) Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames–role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Struct Saf 32:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordova PP, Deierlein GG, Mehanny SS, Cornell CA (2000) Development of a two-parameter seismic intensity measure and probabilistic assessment procedure. Paper presented at the the second US-Japan workshop on performance-based earthquake engineering methodology for reinforced concrete building structures, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan

  • Cosenza E, Prota A (2006) Experimental behaviour and numerical modelling of smooth steel bars under compression. J Earthq Eng 10:313–329

    Google Scholar 

  • CSI (2011) PERFORM-3D V5: nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures: user manual. Computer and Structures, Inc. (CSI), Berkeley

  • CSI (2014) SAFE: Slab analysis by finite element method. Computer and Structures, Inc. (CSI), Berkeley

  • CSI (2015) ETABS: Extended 3D analysis of building systems. Computer and structures, Inc. (CSI), Berkeley

  • Ellingwood BR, Celik OC, Kinali K (2007) Fragility assessment of building structural systems in Mid-America. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1935–1952

    Google Scholar 

  • Elnashai AS, Di Sarno L (2015) Fundamentals of earthquake engineering: from source to fragility, 2nd edn. London, Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwood KJ et al (2007) Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions. Earthq Spectra 23:493–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Mousavi M, Azarbakht A (2011) Strong ground motion record selection for the reliable prediction of the mean seismic collapse capacity of a structure group. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40:691–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogus A (2010) Structural wall systems-nonlinear modeling and collapse assessment of shear walls and slab-column frames. University of California, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Grünthal G, Bosse C, Sellami S, Mayer-Rosa D, Giardini D (1999) Compilation of the GSHAP regional seismic hazard for Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Ann Geofis 42:1215–1223

    Google Scholar 

  • Han SW, Chopra AK (2006) Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using the modal pushover analysis procedure. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1853–1873

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang Y-N, Whittaker AS, Luco N, Hamburger RO (2011) Scaling earthquake ground motions for performance-based assessment of buildings. J Struct Eng 137:311–321

    Google Scholar 

  • IBC (2015) Inernational building code (IBC-2015). International Code Council (ICC), Washington, DC

  • Iervolino I, Cornell CA (2005) Record selection for nonlinear seismic analysis of structures. Earthq Spectra 21:685–713

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong S-H, Mwafy A, Elnashai A (2012) Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of code-compliant multi-story RC buildings. Eng Struct 34:527–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Ji J, Elnashai AS, Kuchma DA (2009) Seismic fragility relationships of reinforced concrete high-rise buildings. Struct Des Tall Special Build 18:259–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Kappos AJ, Kyriakakis P (2000) A re-evaluation of scaling techniques for natural records. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20:111–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsanos EI, Sextos AG, Manolis GD (2010) Selection of earthquake ground motion records: a state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:157–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan Z, El-Emam M, Irfan M, Abdalla J (2013) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and spectral accelerations for United Arab Emirates. Nat Hazards 67:569–589

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiani J, Khanmohammadi M (2015) New approach for selection of real input ground motion records for incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). J Earthq Eng 19:592–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Kircher CA, Whitman RV, Holmes WT (2006) HAZUS earthquake loss estimation methods. Nat Hazards Rev 7:45–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurama YC, Farrow KT (2003) Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:2425–2450

    Google Scholar 

  • LATBSDC (2011) An alternative procedure for seismic analysis and design of tall buildings located in the los angeles region. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23:357–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Malkawi AIH, Barakat S, Shanableh A, Al Bdour W, Omar M, Altoubat S (2007) Seismic hazard assessment and mitigation of earthquake risk in United Arab Emirates. Published jointly by Jordan University of Science and Technology, Aman, Jordan and the Deanship of Research and Higher Studies, University of Sharjah, UAE, Sharjah, UAE

  • Martínez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS (1997) Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Mater Struct 30:139–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Massone LM (2006) RC wall shear–flexure interaction: analytical and experimental responses. University of California

  • Mehanny SS (2009) A broad-range power-law form scalar-based seismic intensity measure. Eng Struct 31:1354–1368

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehanny SSF, Deierlein GG (2000) Modeling and assessment of seismic performance of composite frames with reinforced concrete columns and steel beams. The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Stanford

  • Musson RM et al (2006) The geology and geophysics of the United Arab Emirates, vol 4: Geological hazards. British Geological Survey, Keyworth

  • Mwafy A (2012a) Analytically derived fragility relationships for the modern high-rise buildings in the UAE. Struct Des Tall Special Build 21:824–843

    Google Scholar 

  • Mwafy A (2012b) Classification and idealization of the building stock in the UAE for earthquake loss estimation. Paper presented at the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal

  • Mwafy A, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23:407–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Mwafy A, Elnashai AS, Sigbjörnsson R, Salama A (2006) Significance of severe distant and moderate close earthquakes on design and behavior of tall buildings. Struct Des Tall Special Build 15:391–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Naish DAB (2010) Testing and modeling of reinforced concrete coupling beams. University of California

  • Orakcal K, Wallace JW (2006) Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete walls-experimental verification. ACI Struct J 103:196–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakcal K, Massone LM, Wallace JW (2009) Shear strength of lightly reinforced wall piers and spandrels. ACI Struct J 106:455–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Palanci M, Kayhan AH, Demir A (2018) A statistical assessment on global drift ratio demands of mid-rise RC buildings using code-compatible real ground motion records. Bull Earthq Eng 16:5453–5488

    Google Scholar 

  • Panagiotou M, Restrepo JI (2006) Model calibration for the UCSD 7-story building slice. Paper presented at the NEES-UCSD workshop on the analytical model of reinforced concrete walls for earthquake resistance, San Diego

  • Panagiotou M, Restrepo JI, Conte JP (2007) Shake table test of a 7 story full scale reinforced concrete structural wall building slice phase I: Rectangular wall section. Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego

  • Panagiotou M, Restrepo JI, Conte JP (2010) Shake-table test of a full-scale 7-story building slice. Phase I: rectangular wall. J Struct Eng 137:691–704

    Google Scholar 

  • Park YJ, Ang AHS (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng 111:722–739

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasucci V, Free MW, Lubkowski ZA (2008) Seismic hazard and seismic design requirements for the Aarabian Peninsula region. Paper presented at the 14th World conference on earthquake engineering (14WCEE), Beijing, China

  • PEER (2019) Ground motion Database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center. http://peer.berkeley.edu/. Accessed Jan 01 2019

  • Peiris N, Free MW, Lubkowski ZA, Hussein AT (2006) Seismic hazard and seismic design requirements for the Arabian Gulf region. Paper presented at the First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology (1ECEES), Geneva, Switzerland

  • Pejovic J, Jankovic S (2016) Seismic fragility assessment for reinforced concrete high-rise buildings in Southern Euro-Mediterranean zone. Bull Earthq Eng 14:185–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez ME, Botero JC, Villa J (1999) Cyclic stress-strain behavior of reinforcing steel including effect of buckling. J Struct Eng 125:605–612

    Google Scholar 

  • Satake N, Suda KI, Arakawa T, Sasaki A, Tamura Y (2003) Damping evaluation using full-scale data of buildings in Japan. J Struct Eng 129:470–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Sextos AG, Katsanos EI, Manolis GD (2011) EC8-based earthquake record selection procedure evaluation: validation study based on observed damage of an irregular R/C building. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:583–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Shama AA (2011) Site specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis at Dubai Creek on the west coast of UAE. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 10:143–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Shome N (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Stanford University, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigbjornsson R, Elnashai AS (2006) Hazard assessment of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, for close and distant earthquakes. J Earthq Eng 10:749–773

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen JH, Wallace JW (2004) Displacement-based design of slender reinforced concrete structural walls-experimental verification. J Struct Eng 130:618–630

    Google Scholar 

  • Tso WK, Zhu TJ, Heidebrecht AC (1992) Engineering implication of ground motion A/V ratio. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 11:133–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuna Z (2012) Seismic performance, modeling, and failure assessment of RC shear wall buildings. University of California

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:491–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2005a) Developing efficient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape information. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:1573–1600

    Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2005b) Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity of multidegree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of single-degree-of-freedom approximation. J Struct Eng 131:589–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace JW (2010) Performance-based design of tall reinforced concrete core wall buildings. In: Earthquake Engineering in Europe. Springer, Netherlands, pp 279–307

  • Waugh JD, Sritharan S (2010) Lessons learned from seismic analysis of a seven-story concrete test building. J Earthq Eng 14:448–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen YK, Ellingwood BR, Bracci JM (2004) Vulnerability function framework for consequence-based engineering. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aman Mwafy.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alwaeli, W., Mwafy, A., Pilakoutas, K. et al. Rigorous versus less-demanding fragility relations for RC high-rise buildings. Bull Earthquake Eng 18, 5885–5918 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00915-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00915-y

Keywords

Navigation