SEISMIC FRAGILITY CURVES FOR TALL WALL CONCRETE BUILDINGS

IN MALAYSIA UNDER NEAR-FIELD EARTHQUAKES

KOTAIBA ALJWIM

A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Structure)

School of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

JANUARY 2019
 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my father, SOLIMAN. Thank you for a lifetime of

unfailing love, loyalty and support. I cannot repay you for all that you have done for
me, but I can make you proud by the way I live my life every day. To my mother,
AMENA. Thank you so much for spending your life loving me and taking such good
care of all my needs. You always had your own ways of making me feel so special.
You are one great MOM. To my uncle HUSSIN. Your love and support mean the
world to me.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In preparing this thesis, I was in contact with many people, researchers,

academicians, and practitioners. They have contributed towards my understanding and
thoughts. In particular, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my main thesis
supervisor, Dr. Mohammadreza vafaei, for encouragement, guidance, critics and
friendship. I am also very thankful to my co-supervisor Dr Sophia C.Alih for her
guidance, advices and motivation. Without their continued support and interest, this
thesis would not have been the same as presented here.

The support provided from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) is also

acknowledged. My fellow postgraduate student should also be recognised for their
support. My sincere appreciation also extends to all my colleagues and others who
have provided assistance at various occasions. Their views and tips are useful indeed.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to list all of them in this limited space. I am grateful
to all my family member.

iii
 ABSTRACT

Tall buildings are widespread in Malaysia and the majority of them are
designed to carry only gravity and wind loads. Seismic regulations are not taking into
account for such buildings in both design stage and construction stage. This study
addresses the seismic behaviour of tall buildings in Malaysia by developing fragility
curves for two tall concrete walls. Both buildings are 80m height with two different
configurations. The first building with five car park levels and the second one with
three car park levels. The structural system of both buildings is moment resisting frame
(MRF) at the parking levels and shear wall system at the residential levels. The
reference structures were subjected to fifteen near field earthquake records. Fragility
curves were obtained by relating the obtained seismic demands from nonlinear time
history analysis to the peak ground acceleration using a reliable statistical model. It
was found from fragility curves of building (A) the exterior frame is more vulnerable
than interior frame for both damage states, while in building (B) the probabilities of
both frames to have severe damage were close to each other, but for minor damage,
fragility curves illustrate that the exterior frame was more fragile than interior frame.
The developed fragility curves demonstrated that the seismic behaviours of both
buildings were different under the same ground motion intensities. Results showed
that building (A) with five car-park levels has better resistance to seismic load compare
to building (B) with three car-park. It can be concluded that design concept of such
buildings against wind and gravity is adequate in fulfilling the required performance
if the design PGA is less than 0.2g.

iv
 ABSTRAK

Bangunan-bangunan tinggi yang meluas di Malaysia dan majoriti daripada

mereka direka untuk membawa beban yang hanya graviti dan angin. Peraturan-
peraturan seismik tidak mengambil kira bangunan tersebut di kedua-dua peringkat
rekabentuk dan pembinaan. Kajian ini berucap kelakuan seismik bangunan tinggi di
Malaysia dengan membangunkan kerapuhan keluk bagi dua tembok konkrit yang
tinggi. Kedua-dua bangunan adalah 80m ketinggian dengan dua tatarajah yang
berbeza. Bangunan pertama dengan lima aras tempat letak kereta dan yang kedua
dengan tiga aras tempat letak kereta. Sistem struktur kedua-dua bangunan adalah
rangka menentang masa di aras tempat letak kereta dan sistem dinding ricih di
peringkat kediaman. Struktur tugas adalah tertakluk kepada lima belas berhampiran
bidang rekod gempa bumi. Kerapuhan lengkung yang diperolehi oleh berkaitan
permintaan seismik yang diperolehi dari analisis sejarah masa tak linear dengan
pecutan puncak tanah menggunakan model statistik yang boleh dipercayai. Didapati
dari lengkung kerapuhan bangunan (A) rangka luar adalah lebih banyak terdedah
daripada kerangka dalaman bagi kedua-dua negeri kerosakan, manakala dalam
bangunan (B) kebarangkalian bingkai kedua-dua mempunyai kerosakan teruk adalah
berhampiran antara satu sama lain, tetapi bagi kerosakan kecil, kerapuhan lengkung
menggambarkan bahawa kerangka luar adalah lebih mudah rosak berbanding kawasan
pedalaman bingkai. Lengkung kerapuhan maju menunjukkan tingkah-laku seismik
dari kedua-dua bangunan yang berbeza di bawah keamatan aktiviti pergerakan tanah
sama. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahawa bangunan (A) dengan lima aras tempat letak
kereta mempunyai ketahanan yang lebih baik untuk seismik beban berbanding
bangunan (B) dengan tiga-tempat letak kereta. Maka dapatlah disimpulkan bahawa
konsep reka bentuk bangunan tersebut terhadap angin dan graviti adalah mencukupi
untuk memenuhi prestasi yang dikehendaki jika Reka bentuk PGA kurang daripada
0.2 g.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION i
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT iv
ABSTRAK v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS xiii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Problem Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Research Goal 3
1.3.1 Research Objectives 3
1.3.2 Research Scope 3

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Types of fragility curves 5
2.2.1 Empirical method 6
2.2.2 Experimental method 6
2.2.3 Analytical method 7
2.2.4 Hybrid method 9
2.3 Derived seismic fragility curves 9
2.4 Seismic Hazard in Malaysia 11
2.5 Structrual systems of tall buildings 12

vi
 2.6 Summary 14

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 15

3.1 Introduction 15
3.2 Proposed Method 15
3.2.1 Literature review 16
3.2.2 Selection of arc-type structures 17
3.2.3 Designing of the reference structures 20
3.2.4 Finite element model for the reference
structures 22
3.2.5 Selection of earthquake records 27
3.2.6 Selection of nonlinear analysis method 28
3.2.7 Performance criteria 33
3.2.8 Derivation of fragility curves 34
3.3 Summary 35

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISSCUSION 37

4.1 General 37
4.2 Three-dimensional (3D) models 37
4.2.1 Natural periods of the reference structures 37
4.2.2 Designing of beams and columns 39
4.2.3 Designing of shear wall 44
4.2.4 Designing of concrete slab 45
4.3 Two-dimensional (2D) models 46
4.3.1 Natural periods and mode shapes 46
4.3.2 Seismic demand and plastic hinges results 47
4.3.3 Drift capacities 52
4.3.4 Fragility curves 55

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 60

5.1 Research Outcomes 60
5.2 Contributions to Knowledge 61

REFERENCES 63

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

Table 3.1 Finishing load per meter square of residential floors. 20

Table 3.2 Partitions load per meter length of residential floors 20
Table 3.3 Finishing load per meter square of parking floors 21
Table 3.4 Partitions load per meter length of parking floors 22
Table 3.5 Wind action on the reference structures. 22
Table 3.6 Characteristics of the selected nearfield earthquakes. 27
Table 3.7 Acceptance strain in concrete and reinforcing steel 34
Table 4.1 Design natural periods of the reference structures. 38
Table 4.2 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the exterior frame of building
A. 39
Table 4.2 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the exterior frame of building
A (continue). 40
Table 4.3 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the interior frame of building
A. 41
Table 4.4 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the exterior frame of building
B. 42
Table 4.5 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the interior frame of building
B. 42
Table 4.5 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the interior frame of building
B (continue). 43
Table 4.6 Sizes and reinforcement areas of columns in building A 43
Table 4.7 Sizes and reinforcement areas of columns in building B 43
Table 4.8 Sizes and rebar ratios in the transverse direction of concrete
shear walls in building A. 44
Table 4.9 Sizes and rebar ratios in the transverse direction of concrete
shear walls in building B. 44
Table 4.10 Design natural periods of the reference structures. 47
Table 4.11 Seismic demand at exterior framing system of building (A) 49

viii
Table 4.12 Seismic demand at interior framing system of building (A) 49
Table 4.12 Seismic demand at interior framing system of building
(A)(continue). 50
Table 4.13 Seismic demand at exterior framing system of building (B) 51
Table 4.14 Seismic demand at interior framing system of building (B) 52
Table 4.15 Median of drift capacities. 52
Table 4.15 Median of drift capacities (continue) 53

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

Figure 2.1 Structural models in ZEUS-NL software (Ji et al., 2007). 8

Figure 2.2 Three-dimensional models of a) Tower 1, b) Tower 2, and c)
Tower 3 (Vafaei and Alih, 2018). 10
Figure 2.3 The suitable structural system for different height(Günel and
Ilgin, 2014) 13
Figure 3.1 Research flow chart. 16
Figure 3.2 Typical plan of parking levels. 17
Figure 3.3 Typical plan of residential levels. 18
Figure 3.4 Building A with five levels car parking area. 19
Figure 3.5 Building B with three levels car parking area. 19
Figure 3.6 Sample sketch of finishing materials in residential floors. 21
Figure 3.7 Sample sketch of partitions in residential floors. 21
Figure 3.8 The adopted producer to develop 3D Finite element model for
the reference structures. 23
Figure 3.9 Example of Formatting Method 23
Figure 3.10 Concrete property data form 24
Figure 3.11 Weightless beam section properties 25
Figure 3.12 Diaphragm assignment form 25
Figure 3.13 3D finite element model for building A 26
Figure 3.14 3D finite element model for building B 26
Figure 3.15 Response spectra of fifteen nearfield earthquake records. 28
Figure 3.16 Layout of the reference structure 29
Figure 3.17 2D model for exterior framing system in building A. 29
Figure 3.18 2D model for interior framing system in building A. 30
Figure 3.19 2D model for exterior framing system in building B. 30
Figure 3.20 2D model for interior framing system in building B. 31

x
Figure 3.21 Force-deformation relationship for inelastic behaviour of
beams and columns (ASCE/SEI 41-06, 2006). 32
Figure 3.22 Stress-strain relationship used for concrete 32
Figure 3.23 Stress-strain relationship used for reinforcing steel 33
Figure 3.24 Building behaviour under IO, LS, and CP 34
Figure 4.1 First mode shape in building A 38
Figure 4.2 First mode shape in building B 39
Figure 4.3 Stresses in parking levels floor slab 45
Figure 4.4 Stresses in residential levels floor slab 46
Figure 4.5 Failure mode in columns and shear wall at exterior frame. 48
Figure 4.6 Fiber hinge response in shear wall at 0.8g PGA. 48
Figure 4.7 Plastic hinges formation in columns of interior frame at 1.0g
PGA. 50
Figure 4.8 Hinge response plot for the exterior frame in building (B). 51
Figure 4.9 Max.stroy drift of exterior frame at building (A) against
different ground motions intensities. 53
Figure 4.10 Max.stroy drift of interior frame at building (A) against
different ground motions intensities. 54
Figure 4.11 Max.stroy drift of exterior frame at building (B) against
different ground motions intensities. 54
Figure 4.12 Max.stroy drift of interior frame at building (B) against
different ground motions intensities. 55
Figure 4.13 Seismic fragility of exterior frame at building (A) 56
Figure 4.14 Seismic fragility of interior frame at building (A) 57
Figure 4.15 Seismic fragility of exterior frame at building (B) 58
Figure 4.16 Seismic fragility of interior frame at building (B) 59
Figure 5.1 Fragility curves obtained for a 30-story building in UAE and
fragility curves for the exterior frame in building (A). 61
Figure 5.2 Fragility curves obtained for a 30-story building in UAE and
fragility curves for the exterior in building (B). 62

xi
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ASCE - American Society of Civil Engineers

FEMA - The Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC - Applied Technology Council
BS - British Standard
USGS - United States Geological Survey
PGA - Peak Ground Acceleration
IO - Immediate Occupancy
LS - Life Safety
CP - Collapse Prevention
IDA - Incremental Dynamic Analysis
IDR - Inter-Story Drift Ratio
ETABS - Extended Three-Dimensional Building System

xii
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

 - Reinforcement Ratio
m - Mass
F - Force
g - Gravitational Acceleration
E - Modulus of Elasticity
fck - Characteristic Compressive Strength of Concrete
fyk - Characteristic Yielding Tensile Strength of Reinforcements
fu - Ultimate Tensile Strength of Reinforcements
Mpa - Mega Pascal
kN - Kilo Newton

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Background

Buildings in Malaysia are mostly built of reinforced concrete. Many of them

are designed to carry only wind and gravity loads without consideration of seismic
forces. Assessment of the vulnerability of these buildings is significant for predicting
the potential earthquake losses.

Malaysia seismicity falls between low to moderate. The seismic hazard of

Malaysia is characterized by far-field events from Sumatra and near-field events due
to local seismic faults (Balendra and Li, 2008). The recent earthquake in Ranau drew
attention to predicting and mitigating earthquake losses.

Fragility curves are one of the essential tools in the risk assessment field and
effective approach to evaluate the performance of different structures under various
level of seismic events intensities(Calvi et al., 2006). This tool describes the
probability of structures to exceed certain limit states under various ground motion
scenarios(Mwafy, 2012).

Derivation of fragility curves for tall wall concrete building in Malaysia

through non-linear time history analysis is discussed in this study. One reference
building is designed according to the building codes adopted in Malaysia. The building
behaviour is evaluated under 15 input near-field ground motions. The seismic response
is measured for two concrete walls.

1
1.2 Problem Statement

Building codes and construction practice adopted in Malaysia do not take into
account the anti-seismic regulations (Abas, 2001). Although Malaysia is considered as
a stable region, but in 2015, Ranau, East Malaysia had been stricken by an earthquake
with 5.9 magnitude. Several buildings were damaged due to Ranau earthquake since
many of them are designed only based on gravity and wind loads.

Post-event investigations indicated that the primary reason behind the damaged
buildings is the poor design and workmanship. Many of buildings were damaged
because of the non-engineering construction practice, lack in reinforcement, soft-story
phenomenon. These findings promoted the policy makers, engineers and researchers
to seriously consider the potential consequences from natural hazard in the future.

Fragility relations are used to evaluate the seismic impact on buildings. These
relations are used to predict the potential damage under different earthquake events,
and they also effective for mitigating seismic risk in future. The latter objective can be
achieved through reinforcement jacketing, steel jacketing and FRP installation for
existing structures as well as calibration of the seismic design provisions of new
structures (Mwafy, 2012).

Few studies have been conducted to evaluate the seismic performance of

different structures in Malaysia(Hamid and Mohamad, 2013).These studies are limited
for low to medium rise concrete buildings in Malaysia (Saruddin and Nazri, 2015).
However, high-rise building stock is the most significant since it represents the
majority of building inventories in Malaysia.

The focus of this study is on the physical damage of tall wall concrete building
in Malaysia since it has not been addressed yet. The seismic behaviour of tall wall
concrete building will be discussed through fragility relations.

2
1.3 Research Goal

This study aims to increase the awareness of the policy makers and the planners
toward seismic vulnerability of existing tall buildings, improve the disasters planning
and risk assessment strategies, and dispose anti-seismic regulations and retrofitting
schemes.

1.3.1 Research Objectives

The objectives of the research are:

(a) To investigate failure mode of the reference structure when subjected to near-
field earthquakes.

(b) To obtain seismic demand of the reference structures through nonlinear time
history analysis.

(c) To derive seismic fragility curves for the reference structures under near-field
excitations.

1.3.2 Research Scope

The scope of this study can be defined as following:

(a) The employed compressive strength of concrete is 40Mpa.

(b) The employed yield strength of reinforcing bar is 460Mpa

(c) The employed finite element software is ETABS 2017 software.

(d) The foundation will not be modelled in this study.

(e) Two-dimensional idealization models will be modelled.

3
(f) It is assumed the structures are constructed on stiff soil.

(g) Fifteen near-field earthquake records are selected to perform nonlinear

dynamic analysis.

4
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter discuss the historical background of risk assessment tools and the
previous studies conducted to evaluate the seismic behaviour of different types of
structures. It also describes the methods and techniques used to develop fragility
curves. The seismic hazard in Malaysia is also discussed in this chapter.

Fragility curves are constructed by linking the ground motion intensities to the
structural damage induced by earthquakes. These curves are used to predict the
probability of damage during an earthquake and to reduce the monetary losses during
a seismic event. Fragility curves can be used by the policy makers and insurance
companies as a tool to predict and mitigate the damage of buildings and other civil
structures. Moreover, these curves may use to decide the appropriate retrofitting
methods and to develop new code provisions (Calvi et al., 2006).

2.2 Types of fragility curves

The historical background of fragility curves has been discussed in many

previous studies such as those of (Kumitani and Takada, 1994),(Kumitani and Takada,
1994), and (Joy and Prasad, 2016). These studies state the equations and methods that
were employed to develop fragility curves for different structures.

5
2.2.1 Empirical method

Fragility curves developed using empirical method are based on observations

from previous earthquakes. A very dense data is required to establish the relationship
between the structural damage and the intensity of ground motions.

Yamaguchi and Yamazaki (1995) developed seismic fragility curves for

buildings in Japan based on observational data collected after the 1995 Kobe
earthquake. The collected data was classified into three levels of damage: heavy,
moderate, and no damage for each structural type. The damages buildings were also
categorized based on the structural type into five classes: wood-frame (W), wooden-
prefabricated (WP), reinforced concrete (RC), steel-frame (S), light-gauge steel-
prefabricated (LSP). The time of construction was taken into account and the buildings
were divided into old buildings and new buildings. It was found that the wooden
buildings are more vulnerable than the other buildings. The study concluded that the
age of construction has significant effect on fragility curves where the new buildings
show less probability of damage compare to the old buildings.

Charvet et al. (2014) constructed empirical fragility curves for buildings that
damaged by the 2011 Great east Japan tsunami. The data contained a survey of 178,448
damaged buildings. The buildings were classified in term of construction materials
into three classes, namely: wooden, steel and concrete buildings. The study was
conducted on two stages. The first stage, fragility curves were constructed for the three
building classes. In the second stage, the fragility curves were derived for the buildings
which already collapsed. Finally, the study found that, the wooden buildings were the
most affected by the tsunami.

2.2.2 Experimental method

Experimental method is employed to derive fragility curves as an alternative

of empirical method when the observational data is not capable to cover all
characteristics of buildings. More accurate fragility curves can be obtained using

6
experimental tests but on the other hand this method consumes a lot of time and cost
(Mwafy, 2012).

(Siqueira et al., 2014) evaluate the seismic performance of retrofitted bridges

with seismic-isolator devices using fragility curves. Fragility curves were developed
for different types of bridges using analytical techniques. Experimental tests were
carried out on square bearings with different sizes to obtain the mechanical properties
of these bearings. In order to define the seismic-isolator limit states, critical load tests
were conducted on slender seismic isolation bearings. The results showed that the steel
girder bridges have more resistance to seismic load than concrete girder bridges. The
study recommended that the obtained fragility curves can be used to decide the suitable
retrofitting method for bridges.

Cosenza et al. (2015) developed fragility of a hospital room contents base on

results from shaking table test. The hospital room was simulated by a single -story
steel frame weights around 19 kN. The frame was braced and made of H-shape
columns and beams connected by bolts. The sample frame was equipped by two
cabinets, a desktop computer and a desk. A 3x3 shake table was also employed in the
study as an earthquake simulator with acceleration peak of 1.0g and maximum
frequency of 50 Hz. Five accelerometers were used to monitor the response of the
equipment inside the room. 63 shaking events were performed to evaluate the
probability of the room contents to exceed three damage states which were already
defined by the researchers. It was found that, the distance between the cabinets and the
wall has a significant impact on the cabinet’s performance during earthquake.

2.2.3 Analytical method

The derivation of fragility curves using analytical method is the most popular
because it saves time and money (Mwafy, 2012). Fragility curves are obtained
analytically by using data from time history analysis of finite element model for real
or artificial earthquakes. Many studies developed fragility curves using computational

7
model such like those of (Bilgin, 2013),(Rajeev and Tesfamariam, 2012), and
(Calabrese and Lai, 2013).

Ji et al., (2007) presented an analytical frame work to deveop seimic fragility

curves for RC heigh-rise buildings. The frame work sarted by construction lumped
model for the refernce structures. Different modelling methods were employed to
simulate the non-linear behaviour of the building components. The unceretainty in
ground motion records and construction materilas were also considered in the frame
work. The seismic deamnd were obtained by employing time history analysis to the
lumped model. Finally, fragility curves were obtained by using numerical simulation
of the results. Figure 2.1 shows the structural models of typical components used in
the study.

Figure 2.1 Structural models in ZEUS-NL software (Ji et al., 2007).

(Mwafy, 2012) employed the analytical method to construct seismic fragility

curves for tall reinforced concrete buildings in UAE. Six reference structures were
selected with different height to represent tall buildings inventory in UAE. The
buildings were designed against gravity, wind, and seismic loads using ETABS
Software. The structural system of buildings is frame-shear wall system with flat slab.
ZEUS-NL software were employed in this study to simulate the nonlinear behaviour
of the buildings. Two sets of natural and artificial earthquakes were selected to capture

8
the uncertainty in ground motions. The seismic demand was obtained by applying a
large number of incremental dynamic analysis to the model. Fragility curves were
obtained for the reference structures under two earthquake scenarios through a reliable
statistical model.

2.2.4 Hybrid method

This method is made to produce a realistic estimation for earthquake damage.

In this method both experimental and analytical techniques are combined to verify
each other. This combination can solve the problem of limited data and increase the
efficiency of the analytical method (Barbat et al., 1996).

Kappos et al. (2006) Combined both statistical approach and analytical

approach to derive fragility curves for reinforced concrete building and unreinforced
masonry structure.The researchers selected different types of R/C buildings with three
different heights. The buildings were classified into three classes in term of infill
materials. The seismic design for the selected buildings was discussed based on four
classes. The analysis was carried out on 36 buildings for the two types (Masonry and
R/C). The study combined both the analytical results and the empirical parameters
which were obtained based on statistical data for the buildings damaged by earthquake.
The study showed that, the hybrid approach was effective to calibrate the empirical
and analytical methods.

2.3 Derived seismic fragility curves

Many studies discussed the fragility curves of different types of structures such
as reinforced concrete tall building (Mwafy, 2012),non-building structure such as ATC
towers (Vafaei and Alih, 2018) wind turbine (Quilligan, 2012) bridges (Siqueira et al.,
2014)and masonry structure (Negulescu et al., 2014)

9
 Vafaei and Alih, (2018) discussed the seismic behavior of three ATC towers
and obtained fragility curves for each of them. The towers were different in terms of
height but they share the same structural system. They consisted of steel rigid frame at
the top carried by two concrete cores from bottom as shown in Figure 2.2. The towers
were designed to resist earthquake loads with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.3g.
The incremental dynamic analysis(IDA) was employed by the researchers to obtain
the fragility relations and fiber-base method was selected to model the concrete wall.
In order to capture the uncertainty for the ground motions which had the most influence
on the fragility studies, 45 earthquake records were selected and based on their
PGA/PGV ratio and grouped into low, medium and high groups. The drift capacity for
each tower was calculated and three limit states were assigned. It was shown that, the
shortest tower has more capacity to resist the seismic effects compared to the tallest
one.

Figure 2.2 Three-dimensional models of a) Tower 1, b) Tower 2, and c) Tower 3

(Vafaei and Alih, 2018).

(Zhou et al., 2014) studied the fragility assessment for a 240m reinforced
concrete chimney in China. Incremental dynamic collapse analysis (IDCA) was used
in the study to derive fragility curves. The mean values for materials properties were

10
considered where they have small effect on the fragility. Due to uncertainty in the
ground motions, the researchers selected 21 earthquake events. The study found that,
the chimney has high capacity to sustain under a great earthquake with some minor
damage.

Another study conducted by (Negulescu et al., 2013) discussed the effect of

differential settlement on the vulnerability of masonry structures. A three-story
masonry structure was selected with 9m height and ground dimension of 10x14 m. The
building was damaged by applying deferential settlements pattern between 5-25 cm.
A set of 152 earthquake records was selected and submitted to the damaged building
using nonlinear time history analysis. The study concluded that the significant impact
of deferential settlement on the capacity of buildings to resist lateral loads even for
small values.

2.4 Seismic Hazard in Malaysia

Malaysia is located on a stable part between the Indo-Australian and Eurasian

Plates on the west and Eurasian and Philippine Plates on the east which considered the
most seismically active plates. Nevertheless, it could be subjected to tremors due to
the seismic activities in and around these plates (Abas, 2001).

Malaysia could be affected by two earthquake scenarios. The first scenario is

long-distance from Sumatra fault where the seismic waves travel long distance to reach
the Malaysian bedrock(Balendra and Li, 2008).The second scenario is the short-
distance which may be related to some active local faults in Malaysia(Abas, 2001).
The largest earthquake has been struck Malaysia was reported in East Malaysia with
intensity of VII.

Malaysia is divided into two parts, west Malaysia which categorized as a stable
zone where no local seismic activities were recorded. However, the east part of
Malaysia still under threat of far-field earthquakes which comes from Sumatra fault

11
(Abas, 2001). Many great earthquakes are generated within these states and theses
earthquakes probably extend to Malaysia (Balendra and Li, 2008).

East Malaysia is considered as moderate seismic area. Earthquakes in this part

of Malaysia are generated either locally due to some active local faults or travelled
from Southern Philippine and the Straits of Macassar, Sulu Sea and Celebes Sea to the
east cost of Malaysia (Abas, 2001). Recently, Sabah has been struck by an earthquake
with a moment magnitude of 6.0, eighteen people were killed. This earthquake is the
strongest one in Malaysia.

2.5 Structrual systems of tall buildings

The rapid development in construction technology and materials properties

have changed the traditional rules of design and construction, the new technologies
allowed the engineers to increase the heights of buildings using proper materials to
reduce the weight of buildings

The high-rise buildings are more complicated in structural system and design
compared to normal or low-rise buildings where in the normal buildings the lateral
effects are negligible and they only designed to resist the gravity load, while in tall
buildings the design against wind and earthquake loads is essential.

There is no specific definition for tall buildings. However, from architecture

point view the buildings with height of 15 m measured from the open-air entrance and
more is considered as tall building, it is worth mentioning that the highest building has
been constructed is Burj Khalefa located in Dubai with architecture height of 828 m
(Günel and Ilgin, 2014).

Basically, the height of buildings depends on their structural system, in other

word, more height more complicated system, there are many types of structural
systems have been developed in order to make the building stable while reaching the
desired height. Figure 2.3 shows the suitable structural system for each height.

12
Figure 2.3 The suitable structural system for different height(Günel and Ilgin, 2014)

In buildings with height less than 60 m the domain structural system is the
moment frame system, which contains columns and beams connected by rigid
connections, it can be in form of reinforced concrete or steel. In term of stiffness, the
elements cross-sections and the beam rigidity both provide the stiffness to the frame
system. However, the connection between column and beam must be ductile in order
to resist the lateral drift caused by earthquake, in other word, when the structure exceed
the elastic limit because of overloading, plastic hinges can be formed in the columns
and beams and absorbed the energy(Günel and Ilgin, 2014).

The flat-slab system is also used in several concrete buildings around the
world, this system consists of a slab rested on columns or shear walls directly without
any beams, the absence of beams makes this system effective from architecture point
of view, because the designer in this case can reach the net height of floor. However,
in term of lateral stiffness, this system is considered insufficient to resist the lateral
load due to the low flexural rigidity in the slab, unless the columns are replaced by
shear wall. This system can be employed in buildings of up to about 25 storeys (Günel
and Ilgin, 2014).

Another type of structural system is the shear wall system, this system provides
stability and stiffness for buildings up to 35 storeys, this system consists mainly of
shear wall which can resist the lateral loads and gravity loads as well without columns,
it was found that, the inter-story drift for such kind of systems cannot be controlled at

13
the top storeys, for this reason this system can be replaced by the mega core system or
outrigger system in super tall buildings (Günel and Ilgin, 2014).

Since the frame system is not economic choice for buildings more than 25
storeys and its capacity to resist the lateral load is quite small, the shear-frame system
was developed as an economical alternative by adding shear wall or truss to the frame
system which reduce the lateral shear deformation, in this way frame and shear wall
contribute to each other in order to enhance the performance of buildings under lateral
loads (Günel and Ilgin, 2014).

2.6 Summary

The fragility studies are one of the important techniques to evaluate the damage
produced by seismic events, the studies show that the fragility curves can be used as a
tool to predict the potential losses due to future earthquake and can enhance the
mitigation planning in order to save lives and money when the disasters happen.

There are different methods to develop fragility curves for different types of
buildings namely: (i) expert-based, (ii) empirical, (iii) analytical, and (iv) hybrid. Calvi
et al. (2006) discussed the advantages and disadvantages for each method. However,
the analytical approach to develop the fragility curves is the most effective one because
it saves money and time, in addition it gives a relabel results (Mwafy, 2012).

Base on literature, seismic fragility curves for tall concrete buildings with
discontinuities shear walls have not been addressed yet in Malaysia. Thus, this study
is designed to close this gap and assess the seismic risk of such type of buildings.

14
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the process of developing seismic fragility curves for
tall wall concrete building. The seismic demand is obtained through nonlinear time
history analysis by applying several numbers of nearfield earthquake events to the
reference structures. The reference structures are analysed and designed using ETABS
2017 software(Computers and Structures Inc., 2017).Two-dimensional models are
idealized for each building to develop fragility curves.

3.2 Proposed Method

Figure 3.1 illustrates the adopted steps in this study to develop fragility curves
for tall wall concrete building in Malaysia. Each step is going to be discussed in the
subsequent sections.

15
 Figure 3.1 Research flow chart.

3.2.1 Literature review

Several studies were conducted to develop fragility curves for different

structures. Fragility curves have been constructed for concrete buildings, wind
turbines, ATC towers and bridges. Various methods were employed by researchers to
evaluate the seismic response of the structures.

16
 In Malaysia, fragility studies are still lagging behind. These studies have
addressed the seismic hazard of few buildings in Malaysia. The effects of earthquake
sources, soil types and many other factors were not taken into consideration in these
studies. However, this study addresses fragility curves for tall concrete wall building
in Malaysia.

3.2.2 Selection of arc-type structures

RC high-rise buildings with shear walls supported by beams are widespread in

Malaysia. The reference structures in this study are selected to be two reinforced
concrete buildings with the same height but with two different configurations. The
reference structures are same in plan. The lower storeys are designated to be parking
area in both buildings. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 illustrate the layout of the parking
levels and residential levels.

Figure 3.2 Typical plan of parking levels.

17
 Figure 3.3 Typical plan of residential levels.

The parking levels consist of beams and columns without shear walls while the
residential levels consist of flat slab supported only by shear walls without columns.
Each building has 25 storeys with 3.2 m height. The first five storeys in building A are
assigned as parking area and the first three storeys of building B are assigned to parking
area as shown in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4.

18
Figure 3.4 Building A with five levels car parking area.

Figure 3.5 Building B with three levels car parking area.

19
3.2.3 Designing of the reference structures

Both buildings are designed following provisions and recommendations of

BS8110 (1997) design code for gravity design and ASCE/SEI 07 (2010) code for wind
design. The analysis and design are carried out using ETABS 2017 software. The
seismic design regulations are not adopted in this study.

Concrete strength is 40 Mpa and yield strength of reinforcing steel is 460 Mpa.
The live load is 2 kN/m2 for the residential levels, while it is 5 kN/m2 for the parking
levels. The permeant loads used in design include the self-weight of structural
members in addition to a superimposed dead load from finishing and partitions. Table
3.1 and Table 3.2 demonstrate the superimposed dead loads in residential floors used
in design, while Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6 illustrate the thicknesses of finishing
materials and partitions.

Table 3.1 Finishing load per meter square of residential floors.

Material Thickness (mm) Density (kN/m3) Load (kN/m2)

Tiles 10 22 0.22
Mortar 30 21 0.63
Lightweight concrete 50 11 0.55
Celling - - 0.20
Total Load 1.60

Table 3.2 Partitions load per meter length of residential floors

Thickness Density
Material Height (m) Load (kN/m)
(mm) (kN/m3)
Plaster x 2 faces 30 21 3.2 5.92
Bricks 100 18.5 3.2 2.016
Total Load 7.93

20
 Figure 3.6 Sample sketch of finishing materials in residential floors.

Figure 3.7 Sample sketch of partitions in residential floors.

The finishing and partitions loads assigned to the parking floors are
summarized in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4.

Table 3.3 Finishing load per meter square of parking floors

Thickness
Material Density (kN/m3) Load (kN/m2)
(mm)
Light weight concrete 50 11 0.55
Plaster x 2 faces 30 21 0.63
Total Load 1.18

21
 Table 3.4 Partitions load per meter length of parking floors

Thickness Density
Material Height (m) Load (kN/m)
(mm) (kN/m3)
Plaster x 2 faces 30 21 1.2 1.2
Bricks 100 18.5 1.2 2.22
Total Load 3.42

Wind load are estimated using ASCE/SEI 07 (2010) based on basic wind speed
of 33 m/s and exposure category B. Both buildings are assumed to be constructed on
flat topography and the importance factor for both is 1.00. Table 3.5 shows the wind
loads along the building’s height.

Table 3.5 Wind action on the reference structures.

Story Wind pressure (kN/m2) Wind load (kN/m)

23-25 1.36 4.35
20-22 1.34 4.27
17-19 1.29 4.12
14-16 1.26 4.03
11-13 1.20 3.83
8-10 1.13 3.63
5-7 1.04 3.33
1-4 0.93 2.96

3.2.4 Finite element model for the reference structures

Detailed three dimensional (3D) models are develop for the reference
structures using ETABS 2017 software. Figure 3.8 shows the adopted producer to
develop 3D models for both structures.

22
Figure 3.8 The adopted producer to develop 3D Finite element model for the reference
structures.

From the model initialization form BS8110 as the design code and metric base
unites are selected. Number of storeys and grid spacing are also defined in this step as
shown in Figure 3.9.

Figure 3.9 Example of Formatting Method

23
 Three types of material are defined to the software as shown in Figure 3.10
namely: concrete, reinforcing steel, and non-properties material with zero density. The
modulus of elasticity of concrete is calculated using equation (BS8110-1, 1997):

Ecm = 22[(fck+8)/10]0.3 = 35.22 Gpa (1.1)

Figure 3.10 Concrete property data form

Deferent sections are defined for beams, columns, shear walls, and floor slab.
The thickness of floor slab is 170 mm, while the thicknesses of concrete shear walls
are varied along the height.

Beam sections with non-properties material are also defined to the software.
These beams are subjected to the wind loads which have been calculated earlier and

24
they do not produce any additional mass to the model. Figure 3.11 shows the properties
of weight-less beam section.

Figure 3.11 Weightless beam section properties

Rigid diaphragm is assigned to the floor slabs as shown in Figure 3.12 to ensure
that the lateral loads are uniformly distributed to the structural elements.

Figure 3.12 Diaphragm assignment form

25
 Four static load patterns are defined to the software. Dead loads and live loads
are assigned to shell elements and frame elements. Wind loads are assigned to frame
elements and assumed to affect the buildings in two different directions. Default
meshing option is selected for walls and floors. Figure 3.13 and Figure 3.14 show the
final three dimensional (3D) finite element model for the reference structures.

Figure 3.13 3D finite element model for building A

Figure 3.14 3D finite element model for building B

26
3.2.5 Selection of earthquake records

One set of fifteen natural earthquake records is selected for deriving fragility
curves for the reference structures. The selected records represent near field earthquake
scenario. Table 3.6 summarizes the selected recodes and their peak ground
accelerations.

Table 3.6 Characteristics of the selected nearfield earthquakes.

Label Location Year Duration PGA

HAVER1 Parkfield, California Earthquake 1966 10 -264.35
HAVER2 Parkfield, California Earthquake 1966 15 -425.68
HAVER3 San Francisco Earthquake 1957 10 -102.80
HAVER4 San Francisco Earthquake 1957 35 -83.81
HAVER5 Helena Montana Earthquake 1935 15 143.71
HAVER6 Lytle Creek Earthquake 1970 6 194.41
HAVER7 Oroville Dam, California - 6 -82.50
HAVER8 San Fernando Earthquake 1971 15 1054.95
HAVER9 San Fernando Earthquake 1971 20 -143.51
HAVER10 Nahanni, Canada 1985 15 1.10g
HAVER11 Undefined 1972 8 148.10
HAVER12 Undefined 1972 15 -142.80
HAVER13 Undefined 1966 5 -265.00
HAVER14 Monte Negro-1, Yugoslavia 1979 8 0.04g
HAVER15 Banja Luka-3, Yugoslavia 1981 10 0.07g

Figure 3.15 shows response spectra of 15 natural records representing near

filed events along with the median spectrum, spectrum representing one standard
deviation above the median.

27
 Figure 3.15 Response spectra of fifteen nearfield earthquake records.

3.2.6 Selection of nonlinear analysis method

Nonlinear dynamic time history analysis is selected to develop fragility curves

for tall wall concrete building. This analysis is employed in this study because it offers
accurate response of the structures to input ground motions.

Although ETABS 2017 is capable performing 3D nonlinear analysis, two-

dimensional (2D) idealization models are adopted to save time and reduce the
computational efforts. It is assumed that two lateral-force-resisting systems are in the
transverse directions for each building as shown in Figure 3.16. Each framing system
consists of concrete shear wall supported by beams and columns. Therefore, four
framing systems are modelled to represent the behavior of the two reference structures.
Figure 3.17 ,3.18, 3.19 and 3.120 illustrate the 2D models in both buildings.

28
Exterior Frame

Interior Frame

Figure 3.16 Layout of the reference structure

Figure 3.17 2D model for exterior framing system in building A.

29
Figure 3.18 2D model for interior framing system in building A.

Figure 3.19 2D model for exterior framing system in building B.

30
 Figure 3.20 2D model for interior framing system in building B.

It is assumed that half of floor slabs transfer the loads to the shear walls in
residential storeys and to the beams in parking storeys. The stiffness is modelled by
assigning springs at each meter of the slab length.

Nonlinear behaviour of shear walls is simulated by using inelastic fibre

elements. Lump plastic hinges are assigned to the both ends of beams and columns to
investigate the nonlinear behavior of frame elements. Typical force-deformation
relationship of a plastic hinge that can be defined in ETABS 2017 is shown in Figure
3.21.

In this figure, segment AB represents the elastic behavior, segment BC shows

the post-yield behavior and segment CD indicates the beginning of the failure. The
parameters for each member in the figure were extracted from the tables provided in
ASCE/SEI 41 (2006) considering material properties, internal forces and sizes of
beams and columns.

31
Figure 3.21 Force-deformation relationship for inelastic behaviour of beams and
columns (ASCE/SEI 41, 2006).

The software employs viscous proportional damping for direct integration time
history analysis. The initial mass and stiffness parameters are selected such that the
mode shapes with the period equal to the first mode and the first mode has 2% viscous
damping.

Hysteresis model of concrete is defined base on Takeda hysteresis model due

to its ability to dissipate significant amount of energy. For reinforcing steel Kinematic
hysteresis model is employed since it is recommended for ductile materials. Figure
3.22 and Figure 3.23 show the stress strain relationship for concrete and reinforcing
steel used in this study

Figure 3.22 Stress-strain relationship used for concrete

32
 Figure 3.23 Stress-strain relationship used for reinforcing steel

3.2.7 Performance criteria

Three limit states are adopted in this study as shown in figure based on ASCE 41-
06, namely: Immediate occupancy, Life Safety (LS) and Collapse Prevention (CP). The
concept of damage limit states is to establish scientific assessment in order obtained
systematic evaluation between ground motion Intensity Measure (IM) and Demand
measure (DM).

Immediate Occupancy (IO) performance means that it is permitted to reuse the

structure immediately after an earthquake with minor or no cracks in the non-structural
components. The structure under Life Safety (LS) state undergoes marginal damage and
the structural component are still intact together. Collapse Prevention (CP) level is
considered when the structure is exposed to potential collapse or total damage. Figure 3.24
illustrates the behaviour of buildings under the three limit states.

33
 Figure 3.24 Building behaviour under IO, LS, and CP

Drift capacities for the damage states are presented in FEMA (2000) and
ASCE/SEI 41(2006). The values introduced in these codes depend on the structural
system. For concrete wall structures ASCE/SEI 41(2006) recommends 0.5, 1 and 2%
of inter-story drift ratios (IDRs) as limit states for IO, LS and CP drift capacities. The
employed values of strain in concrete and steel for IO, LS and CP damage states in
this study are shown in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 Acceptance strain in concrete and reinforcing steel

Damage state Strain in concrete Strain in reinforcing steel

IO 0.01 0.0025
LS 0.02 0.02
CP 0.05 0.05

3.2.8 Derivation of fragility curves

Fragility curves display the probability of buildings to exceed various damage

states under different ground motions events. In the present study fragility curves are
developed using Equation 3.1 (Wen et al., 2004) :

34
 (3.1)

(3.2)

where P(DS SI) is the conditional probability of exceeding a damage state (DS)
for a given seismic intensity (SI).  is the standard normal distribution; C is the natural
logarithm of the median of the drift capacity for a particular damage state; D SI is the
natural logarithm of calculated median demand drifts given the seismic intensity from
the best fit power law line. S2 is the standard error and ln is the natural logarithm. DjSI
stands for demand uncertainty while c and M show uncertainties associated with
capacity and modelling, respectively. In this study, M are assumed to be 0.3 as done
in existing literature (Wen et al. 2004; Mwafy 2012). The value of c is taken as

√ln⁡(1 + 𝐶𝑜𝑣.2 ) (Wen et al. 2004) and it is calculated from nonlinear time history
analysis for each limit state capacities. Cov. is the coefficient of variation of the
calculated limit state capacities.

3.3 Summary

Seismic fragility curves are developed for two tall concrete wall buildings in
Malaysia. The buildings are designed to resist only gravity and wind loads based on
the adopted design code in Malaysia. The seismic response in each building is
addressed through two framing systems. Each framing system consist of shear wall
supported by moment resisting frame. Fifteen near filed earthquake records are
selected to capture the ground motions uncertainty. Three damage states are considered
in this study. Drift capacities for the four models are obtained by using nonlinear time
history analysis. Fragility curves are developed based on statistical examinations of
the obtained results.

35
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISSCUSION

4.1 General

The purpose of the current study is to develop fragility curves for tall wall
concrete buildings in Malaysia. This chapter introduces the results of analysis and
provides answers to the objectives of this study.

The results are divided into two sections. The first section discusses the design
results of the three-dimensional (3D) models and the outcomes of the linear analysis.
The second part presents the nonlinear analysis results for the two-dimensional (2D)
idealization models and the obtained fragility curves.

4.2 Three-dimensional (3D) models

4.2.1 Natural periods of the reference structures

For building (A) which has five carpark storeys the modal analysis of the three-
dimensional (3D) model gives natural period of 1.33 seconds at the first mode and 1.30
seconds at the second mode. The natural period of building (B) is 1.46 seconds at the
first mode and 1.3 seconds at the second mode of vibration. Table 4.1 summarizes the
design natural periods for both buildings.

37
 Table 4.1 Design natural periods of the reference structures.

Natural period
Mode
Building (A) Building (B)
1st Mode 1.33 1.46
2nd Mode 1.30 1.30

The modal participating mass ratio at the first mode of vibration for building
(A) and building (B) are 59% and 60%, respectively. The first 12 mode shapes are
considered to ensure the cumulative modal participating mass ratio more than 90%.
The first mode shape for building A and building B are shown in Figure 4.1 and Figure
4.2.

Figure 4.1 First mode shape in building A

38
 Figure 4.2 First mode shape in building B

4.2.2 Designing of beams and columns

Fourteen load combinations were generated for the dead loads, live loads, and
loads by the software to calculate the amount of reinforcements at each structural
element. Table 4.2 ,4.3,4.4, and 4.5 show the rebar ratios at three stations along the
span of the beam, while Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 show the longitudinal reinforcement
of the column sections used in design.

Table 4.2 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the exterior frame of building A.

Top rebar ratio (%) Bottom rebar ratio (%)

Label Size
End I Mid End J End I Mid End J
B001 75cm x70cm 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.15 0
B002 75cm x70cm 0.21 0 0.43 0.54 0.34 0.21
B003 75cm x70cm 0.40 0 0.15 0 0.24 0.15

39
Table 4.3 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the exterior frame of building A
(continue).

Top rebar ratio (%) Bottom rebar ratio (%)

Label Size
End I Mid End J End I Mid End J
B004 75cm x70cm 0.15 0 0.40 0.15 0.24 0
B005 75cm x70cm 0.43 0 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.54
B006 75cm x70cm 0.21 0.15 0.15 0 0.15 0.15
B007 55cm x50cm 0.43 0.15 0.22 0.15 0.28 0.21
B008 55cm x50cm 0.33 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.23 0.15
B009 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B010 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B011 55cm x50cm 0.21 0.15 0.33 0.15 0.23 0.15
B012 55cm x50cm 0.22 0.15 0.43 0.21 0.28 0.15
B013 55cm x50cm 0.36 0.15 0.26 0.15 0.26 0.15
B014 55cm x50cm 0.27 0 0.24 0.15 0.24 0.15
B015 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B016 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B017 55cm x50cm 0.24 0 0.27 0.15 0.24 0.15
B018 55cm x50cm 0.26 0.15 0.36 0.15 0.26 0.15
B019 55cm x50cm 0.30 0 0.26 0.15 0.26 0.15
B020 55cm x50cm 0.27 0 0.24 0.15 0.24 0.15
B021 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B022 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B023 55cm x50cm 0.24 0 0.27 0.15 0.24 0.15
B024 55cm x50cm 0.26 0 0.30 0.15 0.26 0.15
B025 55cm x50cm 0.23 0 0.27 0.15 0.26 0.15
B026 55cm x50cm 0.27 0 0.22 0.15 0.23 0.15
B027 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B028 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B029 55cm x50cm 0.22 0 0.27 0.15 0.23 0.15
B030 55cm x50cm 0.27 0 0.23 0.15 0.26 0.15

40
 Table 4.4 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the interior frame of building A.

Top rebar ratio (%) Bottom rebar ratio (%)

Label Size
End I Mid End J End I Mid End J
B011 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.37 0.15 0.15 0
B012 55cm x50cm 0.21 0 0.16 0.55 0.46 0.57
B013 55cm x50cm 0.32 0.32 0.42 0 0 0
B014 55cm x50cm 0.42 0.32 0.32 0 0 0
B015 55cm x50cm 0.16 0 0.21 0.57 0.46 0.55
B016 55cm x50cm 0.37 0.15 0.15 0 0.15 0.15
B017 55cm x50cm 0.48 0 0.29 0.15 0.44 0.23
B018 55cm x50cm 0.44 0 0.38 0.15 0.37 0.15
B019 55cm x50cm 0 0.15 0.48 0.42 0.23 0
B110 55cm x50cm 0.48 0.15 0 0 0.23 0.42
B111 55cm x50cm 0.38 0 0.44 0.15 0.37 0.15
B112 55cm x50cm 0.29 0 0.48 0.23 0.44 0.15
B113 55cm x50cm 0.40 0 0.37 0.16 0.41 0.17
B114 55cm x50cm 0.40 0 0.35 0.15 0.39 0.16
B115 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.26 0.15 0
B116 55cm x50cm 0.35 0.15 0.15 0 0.15 0.26
B117 55cm x50cm 0.35 0 0.40 0.16 0.39 0.15
B118 55cm x50cm 0.37 0 0.40 0.17 0.41 0.16
B119 55cm x50cm 0.36 0 0.38 0.17 0.41 0.15
B120 55cm x50cm 0.41 0 0.35 0.15 0.39 0.15
B121 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.21 0.15 0
B122 55cm x50cm 0.29 0.15 0.15 0 0.15 0.21
B123 55cm x50cm 0.35 0 0.41 0.15 0.39 0.15
B124 55cm x50cm 0.38 0 0.36 0.15 0.41 0.17
B125 55cm x50cm 0.29 0 0.43 0.20 0.42 0.15
B126 55cm x50cm 0.41 0 0.35 0.15 0.38 0.15
B127 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15
B128 55cm x50cm 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B129 55cm x50cm 0.35 0 0.41 0.15 0.38 0.15
B130 55cm x50cm 0.43 0 0.29 0.15 0.42 0.20

41
 Table 4.5 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the exterior frame of building B.

Top rebar ratio (%) Bottom rebar ratio (%)

Label Size
End I Mid End J End I Mid End J
B001 75cm x70cm 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15
B002 75cm x70cm 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
B003 75cm x70cm 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
B004 75cm x70cm 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
B005 75cm x70cm 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
B006 75cm x70cm 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B007 55cm x50cm 0.34 0.15 0.24 0.15 0.27 0.15
B008 55cm x50cm 0.25 0 0.26 0.15 0.23 0.15
B009 55cm x50cm 0.19 0.15 0.15 0 0.15 0.15
B010 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.15 0.15 0
B011 55cm x50cm 0.26 0 0.25 0.15 0.23 0.15
B012 55cm x50cm 0.24 0.15 0.34 0.15 0.27 0.15
B013 55cm x50cm 0.23 0 0.27 0.15 0.26 0.15
B014 55cm x50cm 0.25 0 0.25 0.15 0.23 0.15
B015 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B016 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
B017 55cm x50cm 0.25 0 0.25 0.15 0.23 0.15
B018 55cm x50cm 0.27 0 0.23 0.15 0.26 0.15

Table 4.6 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the interior frame of building B.

Top rebar ratio (%) Bottom rebar ratio (%)

Label Size
End I Mid End J End I Mid End J
B011 55cm x50cm 0.24 0 0.48 0.20 0.41 0.15
B012 55cm x50cm 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
B013 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.26 0.53 0.22 0.15 0
B014 55cm x50cm 0.53 0.26 0.15 0 0.15 0.22
B015 55cm x50cm 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
B016 55cm x50cm 0.48 0 0.24 0.15 0.41 0.20

42
Table 4.7 Sizes and rebar ratios of beams in the interior frame of building B (continue).

Top rebar ratio (%) Bottom rebar ratio (%)

Label Size
End I Mid End J End I Mid End J
B017 55cm x50cm 0.40 0 0.33 0.16 0.42 0.18
B018 55cm x50cm 0.41 0 0.38 0.15 0.37 0.15
B019 55cm x50cm 0 0.15 0.46 0.38 0.20 0
B110 55cm x50cm 0.46 0.15 0 0 0.20 0.38
B111 55cm x50cm 0.38 0 0.41 0.15 0.37 0.15
B112 55cm x50cm 0.33 0 0.40 0.18 0.42 0.16
B113 55cm x50cm 0.30 0 0.42 0.19 0.42 0.15
B114 55cm x50cm 0.40 0 0.35 0.15 0.38 0.15
B115 55cm x50cm 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.16 0.15 0
B116 55cm x50cm 0.24 0.15 0.15 0 0.15 0.16
B117 55cm x50cm 0.35 0 0.40 0.15 0.38 0.15
B118 55cm x50cm 0.42 0 0.30 0.15 0.42 0.19

Table 4.8 Sizes and reinforcement areas of columns in building A

Label C01 C02 C03 C04

Size (mm) 450x450 600x600 600x600 550x550
Bar diameter (mm) 18 18 20 18
Reinforcement (mm2) 2698 2886 3384 2548
Tie diameter (mm) 10 10 10 10

Table 4.9 Sizes and reinforcement areas of columns in building B

Label C11 C12 C13

Size (mm) 450x450 500x500 700x700
Bar diameter (mm) 18 18 25
Reinforcement (mm2) 4072 4072 7854
Tie diameter (mm) 10 10 10

43
4.2.3 Designing of shear wall

Unlike the design code provisions and recommendations, the shear walls in this
study are designed to be supported only by beams in order to represent the construction
practice in Malaysia. The cross-sections of walls and the corresponding reinforcement
vary along the building height. It is worth mentioning minimum reinforcement ratio is
selected for the horizontal reinforcement of the shear wall. Thicknesses and vertical
rebar ratios of the shear walls of both buildings are shown in Table 4.8 and Table 4.9.

Table 4.10 Sizes and rebar ratios in the transverse direction of concrete shear walls
in building A.

story
Frame
6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 18-20 21-25
Thickness 150 140 130 120 110 100
Exterior Rebar
0.0052 0.0056 0.006 0.0065 0.0071 0.0079
ratio
Thickness 150 140 130 120 110 100
Interior Rebar
0.00698 0.00748 0.00805 0.00558 0.00609 0.00669
ratio

Table 4.11 Sizes and rebar ratios in the transverse direction of concrete shear walls
in building B.

story
frame
4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-25
Thickness 150 140 130 120 110 100
Exterior
Rebar ratio 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
Thickness 150 140 130 120 110 100
Interior
Rebar ratio 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025

44
4.2.4 Designing of concrete slab

The floor slab is designed based on strip method and adequate amount of
reinforcement is selected to prevent any progressive collapse in the event of a local
punching failure. The thickness of slab is selected to be 170mm with 40Mpa concrete
strength for both buildings. The stresses in Mpa in the slab of parking and the
residential storeys are shown in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 respectively.

Figure 4.3 Stresses in parking levels floor slab

45
 Figure 4.4 Stresses in residential levels floor slab

4.3 Two-dimensional (2D) models

4.3.1 Natural periods and mode shapes

The natural period of exterior frame and interior frame in building (A) at first
mode of vibration are 1.66 seconds 2.03 seconds, respectively, while the natural period
of exterior frame and interior frame in building (B) are 1.16 seconds and 1.5 seconds,
respectively. Table 4.10 shows the first and second modes of vibration for exterior and
interior frames in both buildings.

46
 Table 4.12 Design natural periods of the reference structures.

Natural period (sec)

Building (A) Building (B)
Mode
Exterior Interior Exterior Interior
frame frame frame frame
1st Mode 1.66 2.03 1.16 1.5
2nd Mode 0.476 0.509 0.294 0.501

It is clear from the table the interior frame in both buildings has longer period
the exterior one. The results also demonstrate natural periods for both frames in
building (A) are longer than the natural periods in building (B).

4.3.2 Seismic demand and plastic hinges results

Seismic demand has been obtained for the both framing systems at each
building. For building (A), results show the nonlinear plastic hinges formed mainly in
beams and columns at exterior and interior framing system. The shear wall in the
exterior frame has exceed the immediate occupancy limit state at certain records as
shown in Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6. The seismic demand values are summarized in
Table 4.11 for the exterior frame at building (A).

47
Figure 4.5 Failure mode in columns and shear wall at exterior frame.

Figure 4.6 Fiber hinge response in shear wall at 0.8g PGA.

48
 Table 4.13 Seismic demand at exterior framing system of building (A)

PGA 0.1g 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g 0.8g 1.0g

H1 0.0016 0.0006 0.0047 0.0128 0.0147 0.0273
H2 0.0001 0.0032 0.0147 0.0295 0.0292 0.0220
H3 0.0018 0.0033 0.0040 0.0038 0.0057 0.0026
H4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0014 0.0264 0.0273
H5 0.0003 0.0001 0.0021 0.0034 0.0161 0.0204
H6 0.0007 0.0014 0.0020 0.0015 0.0008 0.0059
H7 0.0022 0.0020 0.0011 0.0239 0.0274 0.0259
H8 0.0026 0.0046 0.0035 0.0367 0.0421 0.0535
H9 0.0021 0.0024 0.0191 0.0086 0.0223 0.0140
H10 0.0036 0.0043 0.0039 0.0018 0.0002 0.0190
H11 0.0009 0.0020 0.0053 0.0093 0.0099 0.0129
H12 0.0001 0.0005 0.0029 0.0049 0.0128 0.0148
H13 0.0013 0.0026 0.0041 0.0049 0.0052 0.0078
H14 0.0023 0.0040 0.0050 0.0054 0.0177 0.0207
H15 0.0041 0.0052 0.0065 0.0213 0.0220 0.0345

The seismic demand values for the interior frame of building (A) are presented
in Table 4.12, while Figure 4.7 shows nonlinear plastic hinges formed in the interior
frame.

Table 4.14 Seismic demand at interior framing system of building (A)

PGA 0.1g 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g 0.8g 1.0g

H1 0.00038 0.00057 0.00676 0.00727 0.00642 0.00634
H2 0.00109 0.00511 0.00600 0.00848 0.00640 0.00512
H3 0.00016 0.00043 0.00076 0.00287 0.00377 0.00432
H4 0.00015 0.00051 0.00447 0.00763 0.00413 0.00473
H5 0.00020 0.00069 0.00071 0.00439 0.00450 0.00600
H6 0.00029 0.00060 0.00113 0.00148 0.00277 0.00030
H7 0.00029 0.00085 0.00100 0.00427 0.00517 0.00527

49
 Table 4.15 Seismic demand at interior framing system of building (A)(continue).

PGA 0.1g 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g 0.8g 1.0g

H8 0.00009 0.00009 0.00579 0.00833 0.00992 0.00608

H9 0.00056 0.00106 0.00160 0.00918 0.00515 0.00665
H10 0.00080 0.00142 0.00291 0.00429 0.00501 0.00438
H11 0.00030 0.00078 0.00109 0.00458 0.00322 0.00403
H12 0.00012 0.00012 0.00040 0.00343 0.00579 0.00561
H13 0.00037 0.00081 0.00152 0.00223 0.00358 0.00356
H14 0.00005 0.00006 0.00005 0.00020 0.00458 0.00361
H15 0.00100 0.00204 0.00311 0.00387 0.00761 0.00887

Figure 4.7 Plastic hinges formation in columns of interior frame at 1.0g PGA.

For building (B) seismic demand also have been obtained for interior and
exterior framing systems. Results show that the failure occurred in beams and columns,
while the shear walls still intake even at high peak ground acceleration. Figure 4.8
show a plastic hinge response for the exterior frame under 1g peak ground acceleration.
The obtained seismic demand values are shown in Table 4.13 for exterior frame and
Table 4.14 for interior frame.

50
 Figure 4.8 Hinge response plot for the exterior frame in building (B).

Table 4.16 Seismic demand at exterior framing system of building (B)

PGA 0.1g 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g 0.8g 1.0g

H1 0.00535 0.010412 0.018621 0.009952 0.018029 0.017093
H2 0.005695 0.009041 0.0131 0.01505 0.017141 0.023747
H3 0.002635 0.005199 0.00965 0.007299 0.010079 0.013183
H4 0.003029 0.004841 0.00897 0.010792 0.010712 0.01364
H5 0.001863 0.003542 0.006039 0.01079 0.010901 0.013976
H6 0.000895 0.001719 0.002821 0.004362 0.006106 0.005609
H7 0.003971 0.007935 0.013656 0.004613 0.006345 0.007965
H8 0.006315 0.010741 0.017161 0.028863 0.040677 0.042406
H9 0.004884 0.009488 0.021262 0.027266 0.02572 0.005044
H10 0.003483 0.005877 0.010096 0.015785 0.021036 0.009583
H11 0.001648 0.003285 0.006558 0.009363 0.008558 0.006929
H12 0.005204 0.00929 0.009642 0.014071 0.005206 0.005157
H13 0.001132 0.002243 0.004502 0.00684 0.009267 0.01178
H14 0.002528 0.004662 0.007942 0.011639 0.011134 0.00714
H15 0.003067 0.005306 0.012005 0.012316 0.005831 0.015277

51
 Table 4.17 Seismic demand at interior framing system of building (B)

PGA 0.1g 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g 0.8g 1.0g

H1 0.001343 0.002538 0.00443 0.006836 0.009368 0.003586
H2 0.001408 0.002879 0.005272 0.005481 0.005241 0.006604
H3 0.000699 0.001398 0.00279 0.004111 0.005352 0.000788
H4 0.001149 0.002216 0.004318 0.006243 0.007891 0.000053
H5 0.00124 0.002478 0.004771 0.005241 0.005082 0.006258
H6 0.000584 0.001167 0.002278 0.003327 0.004286 0.005588
H7 0.001499 0.002865 0.003883 0.004212 0.005684 0.007054
H8 0.002238 0.004616 0.00843 0.010925 0.003807 0.004818
H9 0.00229 0.004202 0.005187 0.005399 0.007211 0.00978
H10 0.001818 0.003487 0.003212 0.007732 0.004065 0.005208
H11 0.000836 0.001669 0.00329 0.001689 0.005056 0.004922
H12 0.001059 0.00212 0.004102 0.005549 0.004621 0.006203
H13 0.000552 0.001104 0.002208 0.003316 0.004245 0.005113
H14 0.001227 0.002402 0.004015 0.004933 0.005693 0.004122
H15 0.002078 0.003744 0.005967 0.005731 0.007714 0.010128

4.3.3 Drift capacities

Table 4.15 displays median drift capacities obtained for exterior frame and
interior frame at each building. Figure 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 depict the statistical
distributions of inter story ratios against PGA along with the calculated power law
equations and the coefficient of distributions (R2).

Table 4.18 Median of drift capacities.

Framing system
Exterior frame Interior Frame
IO (%) CP (%) IO (%) CP (%)
Building (A) 0.6 1.78 0.80 0.85

52
 Table 4.19 Median of drift capacities (continue)
Framing system
Exterior frame Interior Frame
Building (B) 0.9 1.1 0.49 0.52

As can be seen from the table drift capacities in building (A) are higher than
drift capacities in building (B) and at the same time the drift capacities for the exterior
frames in both buildings are higher than drift capacities for interior frames.

Y = 0.0222X0.7164
R = 0.975

Figure 4.9 Max.stroy drift of exterior frame at building (A) against different ground
motions intensities.

53
 0.045
Y = 0.0063X0.7459
0.040
R = 0.985
Max.Interstory drift ratio 0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
PGA (g)

Figure 4.10 Max.stroy drift of interior frame at building (A) against different ground
motions intensities.

Y = 0.0145X0.6381
R = 0.973

Figure 4.11 Max.stroy drift of exterior frame at building (B) against different ground
motions intensities.

54
 Y = 0.0072X0.7207
R = 0.981

Figure 4.12 Max.stroy drift of interior frame at building (B) against different ground
motions intensities.

4.3.4 Fragility curves

Figure 4.13 displays the generated fragility curves for the exterior frame in
building (A) considering the nearfield earthquake records. The probability of minor
damage at the exterior frame is 10% at 0.1g ground motion intensity, then it increases
sharply to reach 90 % at 0.4g. Between 0.8g and 1.0g, the probability of damage
remains stable at 100 % probability of minor damage.

For severe damage, the probability at exterior frame is almost zero within the
range between 0.1g and 0.2g. The curve starts to rise up at 0.4g with 15% probability
pf severe damage, this value exceeds 50% at 0.8g and becomes 70% at 1.0g.

55
 Figure 4.13 Seismic fragility of exterior frame at building (A)

Figure 4.14 shows the generated fragility curves for the interior frame in
building (A) considering the nearfield earthquake records. It can be seen from figure
the probability of both minor and severe damage is close to each other. The maximum
probability of minor damage is 30% at 1.0g, while the maximum probability of sever
damage is 25% at the same intensity.

For the intensities range of 0.1g to 0.4g, both curves are identical, and they
show no probability of damage. At 0.6g the interior frame shows minor damage with
only 5% probability and around 7% probability of severe damage.

56
 Figure 4.14 Seismic fragility of interior frame at building (A)

It is found from fragility curves of building (A) the exterior frame is more
vulnerable than interior frame for both damage states. The probability of interior frame
to have minor damage or severe damage is insignificant within the range between 0.1g
to 0.4g, while the probability of exterior frame to exceed minor damage state is 90%
at 0.4g and the probability of frame to get severe damage is 15% at the same intensity.
It is also clear from figures the maximum probability can be reached in the interior
frame is 30% for (IO) and 25% for (CP) at 1.0g, while the exterior frame shows 100%
probability to get minor damage and 70% to get severe damage at the same intensity.

Seismic fragility curves for exterior frame in building (B) is presented in Figure
4.15. It can be seen in from the figure that the probability of minor damage increases
dramatically along the ground motion intensities.

The structure does not show any level of damage at ground motion intensity of
0.1g but at 0.2g the probability of minor damage becomes 10% and the probability of
severe damage doesn’t exceed 5%. The probability of minor damage keeps increasing

57
significantly to reach around 90 % at 1.0g ground motion intensity. The probability of
severe damage increases sharply from 20% at 0.4g to more than 70% at 1.0g.

Figure 4.15 Seismic fragility of exterior frame at building (B)

The obtained fragility curves for the interior frame in building (B) is shown in
Figure 4.16. It is clear from figure the probabilities of the interior frame to exceed
immediate occupancy and collapse prevention limit states are close to each other.

For minor damage, results show no damage within the range between 0.1g and
0.2g. The probability of minor damage increases significantly to 25% at 0.4g and it
reaches 80% at 1.0g. The probability of severe damage is a bit smaller than the
probability of minor damage. The figure show that the probability of interior frame to
have severe damage is 20% at 0.4g and 45% at 0.6g while this probability increases to
75 % at 1.0g.

58
 Figure 4.16 Seismic fragility of interior frame at building (B)

In building (B) the probabilities of both frames to have severe damage are close
to each other. It can be seen from figures the probability of exterior frame to exceed
(CP) is 70% at 1.0g and around 78% at interior frame, where both frames don’t show
any serious damage within the range 0.1g to 0.2g.

For minor damage, fragility curves illustrate that the exterior frame is more
fragile than interior frame. The probability of exterior frame to get minor damage at
0.2g is 10%, while at the same intensity the interior frame has negligible probability
to exceed (IO).

59
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Research Outcomes

Tall buildings are widespread in Malaysia of which their seismic vulnerability

has not been well researched. This study addressed the seismic fragility of two tall
concrete wall buildings in Malaysia. Both buildings have 25 storeys and the height of
each story is 3.2m. The first five storeys were designated as car park area in building
(A) and the first three storeys were designated as car park area in building (B). The car
park levels are moment resisting frame and the residential levels consist of shear walls
and flat slab without columns. The shear walls had no connections with the foundation
system instead they were supported by beams.

Two-dimensional model has been idealized for exterior and interior framing
system of each building. The 2D models were subjected to 15 natural nearfield
earthquake records. Fragility curves of the reference structures were obtained by
relating the measured seismic responses from a large number of incremental dynamic
analysis to the peak ground acceleration using a reliable statistical model.

Results demonstrated that building (B) with three car park levels is more fragile
than building (A) with five car park levels. The developed fragility curves show that
the seismic behaviours of both buildings are different under the same ground motion
intensities. For the severe damage building (A) has more chance to survive since the
maximum probability to exceed (CP) in interior framing system is only 25% at 1.0g,
while it is more than 70% at interior frame of building (B). It also observed that the
reference structures have minor or no damage under ground motion intensities between
0.1g and 0.2g of the selected records. It can be concluded that design concept of such
buildings against wind and gravity is adequate in fulfilling the required performance
if the design PGA is less than 0.2g.

60
5.2 Contributions to Knowledge

A study has been carried out by (Mwafy, 2012) to develop fragility curves for
tall buildings in UAE. The structural system of the refence structures were selected as
shear wall system. The buildings were subjected to two different earthquake scenarios,
namely: far filed and near field earthquake.

The researcher has employed incremental dynamic analysis and push over
analysis to obtain the seismic response of the reference structures. The outcomes of
(Mwafy, 2012) study have been compared with the outcomes of this study; for this
purpose, the obtained fragility curves for exterior frame in building (A) and building
(B) are compared to fragility curves of 30-story height RC building subjected to
nearfield earthquakes in UAE as shown in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.1 Fragility curves obtained for a 30-story building in UAE and fragility
curves for the exterior frame in building (A).

61
Figure 5.2 Fragility curves obtained for a 30-story building in UAE and fragility
curves for the exterior in building (B).

As can be seen from figure, the probability of the building in UAE to exceed
minor damage is lower than the probability of minor damage in exterior frame of both
buildings. Moreover, the probability of Mwafy structure to get severe damage is almost
zero. It is clear from figures the reference structures in this study are less resistance to
seismic load than the building in UAE. The reason behind that is the building in
Mwafy (2012) paper is designed to resist earthquake load and unlike the reference
structures for this study the shear walls are connected to the foundation system.

62
 REFERENCES

Abas, M. R. B. C. (2001) ‘Earthquake Monitoring in Malaysia’, in the Seismic Risk

Seminar, Malaysia. Selangor: Seismological Division Malaysian
Meteorological Service, p. 10.
ASCE/SEI 41 (2006) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Virginia: American
Society of Civil Engineers.
ASCE/SEI 7 (2010) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Balendra, T. and Li, Z. (2008) ‘Seismic hazard of Singapore and Malaysia’, Electronic
Journal of Structural Engineering, 8, pp. 57–63.
Barbat, A. H., M.EERI, Moya, F. and Canas, J. A. (1996)
‘DamageScenariosUrbanZones’, Earthquake Spectra, p. 24.
Bilgin, H. (2013) ‘Fragility-based assessment of public buildings in Turkey’,
Engineering Structures. Elsevier Ltd, 56, pp. 1283–1294.
BS8110-1 (1997) Structural use of concrete,Code of practice for design and
construction,part 1. British Standard.
Calabrese, A. and Lai, C. G. (2013) ‘Fragility functions of blockwork wharves using
artificial neural networks’, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.
Elsevier, 52, pp. 88–102.
Calvi, G. M., Pinho, R., Magenes, G., Bommer, J. J. and Crowley, H. (2006)
‘Development of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies Over the
Past 30 Years’, 43(472), pp. 75–104.
Charvet, I., Ioannou, I., Rossetto, T., Suppasri, A. and Imamura, F. (2014) ‘Empirical
fragility assessment of buildings affected by the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami
using improved statistical models’, Natural Hazards, 73(2), pp. 951–973.
Computers and Structures Inc. (2017) ‘CSi Analysis Reference Manual CSI Analysis
Reference Manual’. Computers and Structures Inc.
Cosenza, E., Di Sarno, L., Maddaloni, G., Magliulo, G., Petrone, C. and Prota, A.
(2015) ‘Shake table tests for the seismic fragility evaluation of hospital rooms’,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 44(1), pp. 23–40.

63
FEMA (2000) FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Rehabilitation Requirements. Virginia: American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Günel, M. H. and Ilgin, H. E. (2014) Tall Buildings : Structural Systems. New York.
Hamid, N. H. A. and Mohamad, N. M. (2013) ‘Seismic assessment of a full-scale
double-storey residential house using fragility curve’, Procedia Engineering.
Elsevier B.V., 54, pp. 207–221.
Ji, J., Elnashai, A. S. and Kuchma, D. A. (2007) ‘An analytical framework for seismic
fragility analysis of RC high-rise buildings’, Engineering Structures, 29(12),
pp. 3197–3209.
Joy, R. and Prasad, C. K. (2016) ‘Development of Analytical Fragility Curve – a
Review’, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
(IRJET), 3(8), pp. 713–716.
Kappos, A. J., Panagopoulos, G., Panagiotopoulos, C. and Penelis, G. (2006) ‘A hybrid
method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings’, Bulletin
of Earthquake Engineering, 4(4), pp. 391–413.
Kumitani, S. and Takada, T. (1994) ‘Methothods for Regional Damage Estimation’,
Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World Conference, Rotterdam.
Mwafy, A. (2012) ‘Analytically derived fragility relationships for the modern high-
rise buildings in the UAE’, Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings.
Negulescu, C., Ulrich, T., Baills, A. and Seyedi, D. . (2013) ‘Fragility curves for
masonry structures submitted to permanent ground displacements and
earthquakes’, Natural Hazards.
Negulescu, C., Ulrich, T., Baills, A. and Seyedi, D. M. (2014) ‘Fragility curves for
masonry structures submitted to permanent ground displacements and
earthquakes’, Natural Hazards, 74(3), pp. 1461–1474.
Rajeev, P. and Tesfamariam, S. (2012) ‘Seismic fragilities for reinforced concrete
buildings with consideration of irregularities’, Structural Safety. Elsevier, 39,
pp. 1–13.
Saruddin, S. N. A. and Nazri, F. M. (2015) ‘Fragility curves for low- and mid-rise
buildings in Malaysia’, Procedia Engineering. Elsevier B.V., 125, pp. 873–
878.

64
Siqueira, G. H., Sanda, A. S., Paultre, P. and Padgett, J. E. (2014) ‘Fragility curves for
isolated bridges in eastern Canada using experimental results’, Engineering
Structures. Elsevier Ltd, 74, pp. 311–324.
Vafaei, M. and Alih, S. C. (2018) ‘Seismic vulnerability of air traffic control towers’,
Natural Hazards. Springer Netherlands, 90(2), pp. 803–822.
Wen, Y., Ellingwood, B. and Bracci, J. (2004) ‘Vulnerability function framework for
consequence-based engineering’, Mid-America. Earthquake Center Project
DS-4 Report. University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, pp. 1–101.
Yamaguchi, N. and Yamazaki, F. (1995) ‘Fragility Curves for Buildings in Japan
Based on Damage Surveys After the 1995 Kobe Earthquake’, City, pp. 1–8.
Zhou, C., Zeng, X., Pan, Q. and Liu, B. (2014) ‘Seismic fragility assessment of a tall
reinforced concrete chimney’, The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings.

65