Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-019-0047-7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Assessment on combined effects of multiple engineering demand

parameters (MEDP) contributing on the shape of fragility curve
Arjun Sil1 · Dawa Zangmu Sherpa1 · Pritam Hait1

Received: 4 December 2018 / Accepted: 8 March 2019

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
There is saying that earthquakes do not kill people however, the structures do, therefore, the earthquake mitigation becomes
vital for the structure located in the earthquake-prone region. One such tool for the risk investigation is fragility analysis. It
shows the probability of exceedance (POE) of certain damage level at particular intensity measures (IM). The method at first
used for the nuclear power plants in 1984 and from 1990 its utilization was connected in building too. In the present work,
the four story reinforced concrete (RC) framed residential building with different bay ratios such as 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and
1.00 considered. The Non-Linear Time History Analysis (NLTHA) carried out and the inelastic behavior of the building is
captured in the form of damage measures such as maximum inter-story drift ratio (MIDR), roof displacement (Δ), and the
joint rotation (Ѳ). The two types of fragility curves has been obtained such as (1) considering the effects of only MIDR, and
(2) considering the combined effects of MIDR, Δ, and Ѳ. However, past work by researchers is mostly dealing with the for-
mer type of fragility assessment. While for later type of fragility curve, limited work has been done. This paper presents the
effects of the bay ratio (plan aspect ratio) in the fragility curve. It concluded that, combining the effects of response parameters
has tremendous effect on the shape of the fragility curve and its effect must be considered in the study of fragility analysis.

Keywords  Fragility curve · Displacement · Risk · EDPs · Bay ratio · IM

1 Introduction scientists are rigorously working on knowing something

drastic, moderate or slight damage that could occur in the
Ever since the formation of the mother Earth, there are lot structure in the particular place as expected load. This led
of mysterious natural phenomenon which was not uncov- to the birth of the so-called ‘Fragility Analysis of Structure’
ered but as the human curiosity grows, those phenomena which gives expected damage to the structure. The paper
could now be understood with the assistance of science and presents the fragility analysis of the residential buildings for
persistent work of researchers. Likewise, few decade backs the region around Silchar, Assam. The four story buildings
development in the earthquake engineering has got the impe- were modeled however, considering with the varying bay
tus due to which many landmark theories has come in exist- ratios of 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00. The bay ratio implies
ence such as probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), here, is the ratio of number of the bays along y-direction to
earthquake forecasting, time history analysis and many x-direction as shown in Fig. 1. The number of bays varies
more. With the advancement of knowledge and technology, in y-direction. However, ten real recorded ground motions
various seismic design codes developed for various coun- are fed for the NLTHA. These ground motions are selected
tries which especially focused on the local site conditions that has occurred and recorded in different stations in the
and the design practice of such code adopted in the country NE region of India. The stations selected are from nearby
for constructing structures. As the research focus is shift- Silchar, Peak ground acceleration (PGA) taken as the IM of
ing more towards the economy and accuracy, the engineers, ground motion. The responses of the buildings are meas-
ured in terms of MIDR, Ѳ, and Δ. The relationship is set
up between IM and EDPs through regression analysis. The
* Arjun Sil two types of fragility curves are plotted such as (1) Single
silarjun@gmail.com Response Parameter Fragility (SRPF) curve, where only one
1 EDP (i.e., MIDR) is taken into account and (2) Combined
Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Silchar, Assam, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 5  Page 2 of 17 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5

Fig. 1  The plan of buildings with the bay ratios such as a 1.00, b 0.75, c 0.50, d 0.25 and e the elevation of buidlings

Response Parameters Fragility (CRPF) curve, where the the effects of the bay ratio in the shape of fragility curve
combined effect of all three EDPs such as MIDR, Ѳ, and Δ have been examined.
are taken in account. These two types of curves compared Alternatively, the fragility analysis method initially devel-
and their features are discussed in the present work. Also, oped for the nuclear power plant [1], where they plotted

13
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5 Page 3 of 17  5

a family of fragility curves for various critical equipment this paper considers the effects of both single EDP and the
which could lead radioactive leakage on failure. The method combined EDP. The single EDP means that only one EDP
got impetus and since the 1990s [2], it expanded its influence (i.e., MIDR) is considered while for combined EDP, all
over the assessment of ordinary building also. However, fra- three responses of building (i.e., MIDR, Ѳ and Δ) are taken
gility curve is a statistical measure and it shows the prob- together. The main objective of the paper is to see the effect
ability of exceeding the certain damage level at a particular of the bay ratio in fragility analysis and to compare the SRPF
IM. Here, IM is ground motion indices and it could be PGA, and CRPF curves. The results of this study could be useful
pseudo-spectral acceleration (PSA), spectral acceleration for the Govt. and the designer for risk assessment strategies
(SA), Spectral Displacement (SD), and spectral velocity. in earthquake disaster mitigation in this area.
However, among all IMs, PGA is the most common IM
[1–4]. There are various ways to find fragility functions such
as (1) expert opinion based found in the report of ATC 13 2 Methodology
and ATC 40. It is incorporated by Porter et al. [5] (2) empiri-
cal method based on the damage data of past earthquake. 2.1 Sample building
This method is successfully adopted by Ioannou et al. [6]
and developed the vulnerability curve for RC frame, (3) ana- The four story RC framed building is chosen for the present
lytical method; this is a very popular method these days. The study. The study is conducted considering the study region
substantial amount of work is done by the method [7–9] and in and around Silchar, located in NE region of India. The
the last one becomes (4) the hybrid method, which consists considered buildings in the present study are residential
of a combination of analytical and experimental approach buildings. The plan of the building is regular. The study is
and Kappos et al. [10] used this approach for their work. conducted on four different samples building with varying
For the present work, the analytical approach has been bay ratio (Plan aspect ratio) except keeping the number of
used. For fragility curve generation, there are usually two stories same. The four bay ratios selected such as 0.25, 0.50,
types of simulation method namely such as (1) POA and (2) 0.75 and 1.00 shown in Fig. 1a–d. Each building analyzed
NLTHA. In past Mosalam et al. and Frankie et al. [11, 12] and their responses were recorded. The building designed
have used POA and Seyedi et al. [13, 14] used the NLTHA. according to IS 456:2000 and IS 1893:2002. Modeling was
However, Vona [15] went through both the methods in detail done by SAP 2000 v-19 software. Though IS 1893-2016 is
and encouraged to use the NLTHA, as it is very accurate. published but this code is not updated in SAP-2000 v-19.
Silva et al. [16] also, put a light on the accuracy of NLTHA. The number of bays varied in a y-direction. The 2-D non-lin-
Indeed, Billah and Alam [17] highlighted the computational ear analysis was carried out, the ground motions fed in both
expensive nature of NLTHA as it requires a large number of the directions separately and their behaviors were observed
ground motion records but the number of records could be to draw the fragility curve. Static analysis and design of
reduced if Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) method is the buildings done, applying gravity and earthquake loads
used. Colapietro et al. [18] said that IDA is just an extended on the frames. For non-linear analysis, flexural hinges are
version of NLTHA. For the current work, NLTHA with the assigned to the members of the frames by using the auto
increment in intensity level is used for the analysis. The sub- hinge property of SAP 2000. Modal analysis performed and
stantial amount of work done in fragility analysis of building their estimated fundamental time periods evaluated such as
such as by Hancilar et al. and Lin et al. [19, 20]. Singhal 0.975 s, 0.927 s, 0.891 s, and 0.807 s for the bay ratios 0.25,
and Kiremidjian [21] first attempted to capture the effect of 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00, respectively. The detail description of
number of the story on fragility curve the number of story the building is shown in Table 1.
for RC buildings chosen by them were 2, 5 and 12 stories.
Followed by Kirçil and Polat [22] who plotted curves for 3, 2.2 Ground motion
5 and 7 stories and later Ibrahim and El-Shami [23] for 4 and
8 stories mid-rise RC framed buildings. Kumar et al. [24] The behavior of the structure is reflected well in NLTHA.
did vulnerability assessment by providing set back at differ- Consequently in order to know the non-linear behavior of the
ent bays in different story level. From the literature review, structure, selection of appropriate ground motion becomes
it could be concluded that there is a limited work carried a prime importance. The random nature of ground motion
out to distinguish the effect of the bay in fragility analysis. cause uncertainties in the response of the structure [29, 30].
Also, the EDPs used in most of the works are MIDR for the Both synthetic and real ground motion could be used but
mid-rise building. Kirçil and Polat [22], Seyedi et al. [14], the later is widely accepted [31]. According to Uniform
Erberik and Elnashai [25], Zentner et al. [26], and Vam- Building Code [32], the required number of ground motion
vatsikos and Cornell [27] have used MIDR as EDP while records are 7 [33] suggested three ground motions becomes
McCrum et al. [28] used roof displacement as EDP. But sufficient, if selection and scaling are done wisely and later

13
 5  Page 4 of 17 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5

Table 1  Description of sample
buildings Total height of building (m) 13.4 Concrete density (kN/m3) 25
Parapet height (m) 1.5 Live floor load (kN/m2) 3
Thickness of parapet wall (mm) 125 Live roof (kN/m2) 1.5
Column height (m) 3.1 Masonry density (kN/m3) 20
Plinth level ht. (m) 0.5 Floor finish (kN/m2) 1
Depth of foundation (m) 0.5 Concrete grade M30
Slab thickness (mm) 150 Rebar grade Fe415
Thickness of exterior wall (mm) 125 Importance factor 1
Thickness of interior wall (mm) 125 Response Reduction Factor 5
Beam size (mm) 300 × 350 Zone v 0.36 g
Column size (mm) 450 × 450 Soil type Medium
Number of storey 4 Poison ratio of concrete 0.15

Reyes and Kalkan [34] suggested to use more than seven till up to the failure of the structures or to the desired level.
ground motions for precise evaluation of structural behav- Thus, the worst scenario could be incorporated by scaling
iors. Therefore, taking the proposed idea into account ten the record.
ground motions selected for the present work. The ground
motions data have been extracted from COSMOS VIRTUAL 2.3 Non‑linear time history analysis
DATA CENTER. The stations from which the records have
been taken are located within the radius of 120 km from In order to develop fragility curve using analytical approach,
Silchar. Further, ground motion could be characterized by NLTHA is performed in SAP-2000. In the past Akkar et al.
different parameter such as amplitude, frequency content, [40], Hancilar et al. [19], and Borele and Datta [7], also used
duration, PGA, SA, and (M–R) pair magnitude-source to this tool, though NLTHA is time taking Vona [15], and Silva
site distance, but among all, PGA is the most common one. et al. [16] reported that NLTHA produces the most accurate
M–R pair is also commonly used for PSHA and DSHA. But result. Geometric nonlinearity is considered in NLTHA.
Baker and Cornell [35] found that the ‘R’ has very meager The analysis in SAP 2000 was carried out by using Direct
significance in an assessment of damage indices of structure Integration Method. For NLTHA, in the current study, ten
whereas magnitude is much more sensitive towards a struc- ground motions are used as discussed in Sect. 2.2 the SCGM
tural response, hence taking this into account ground motion has been scaled to the different intensity level. Here the PGA
of magnitude varying from ­Mw 5.5 to ­Mw 7.2 has been cho- (g) is considered as IM and each ground motion has been
sen for the NLTHA. The extracted ground motions are from scaled up or down to the desired level. For each intensity
soil site. The care has been taken not to include a record of level, the demand response is recorded for the example
distance lower than 15 km to avoid near-field effects as sug- building and the demand responses are MIDR, Δ, and Ѳ.
gested by UBC [36]. All other details regarding the chosen The ground motions have been scaled as 0.04 g, 0.08 g,
ground motion are given in Table 2. 0.12 g up to 0.44 g. The PGA (g) till 0.44 g has been chosen
In order to make ground motion compatible with the site because the MIDR observed were more than 4% for some
condition, the spectrum compatible ground motion (SCGM) GM. The analysis has been carried out for both directions.
is generated [37]. The main benefit of using SCGM is that
it becomes compatible with design spectrum. Accord- 2.4 Fragility curve
ing to Bommer and Acevedo [38], SCGM produces rela-
tively lower dispersion and it could be used especially for Fragility curve is a statistical measure and it shows the prob-
NLTHA which is computer intensive. Another good reason ability of exceeding the certain damage level at a particular
for using such accelerograms is the scarcity of recorded IM. It is expressed by Cumulative Distributive Function.
ground motion for many seismic areas. Therefore, all the Here IM is ground motion indices which could be PGA,
converted ground motions are scaled down and up in order PSA, SA, SD, and so on. In the present work, the fragility
to get the desired IM. Here each and every SCGM is scaled curve is plotted against the PGA. PGA is the most com-
from 0.04 g to 0.44 g in the increment of 0.04 g. Samanta mon form of IM [1, 2, 4], while few discouraged its use and
and Pandey [39] proposed that the scaling of ground motion recommended the use of SA such as Kirçil and Polat [22]
provides lower dispersion in the assessment, if EDP such as while Kafali and Grigoriu [41] gave an alternative IM char-
MIDR is used. By scaling, it is possible to get the response acterized by M–R pair and warned the using of PSA as it is

13
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5 Page 5 of 17  5

Table 3  Regression analysis for SRPF curve with ground motion in

Duration (s)
the y-direction
Bay ratio ln PGA(g) = a R2 Lognormal Lognormal

57.82
46.76
38.26

13.54
12.94
9.04
16.42
64.10
28.58
25.6
ln(MIDR) − b standard mean
deviation
A B
Long (E)

92.77
92.80
92.79
92.46
92.86
92.86
93.31
93.14
93.30
93.44
0.25 0.804 1.648 0.773 0.4795 − 1.612
0.50 0.833 1.593 0.792 0.4682 − 1.694
0.75 0.810 1.566 0.782 0.4826 − 1.605
Lat (N)

24.83
24.83
24.92

25.17
25.17

25.31
25.38
25.92
1.00 0.788 1.407 0.758 0.5113 − 1.601

25.2
25
PGA (m/s2)

not good for non-linear system but M–R pair used by him
1.4882
0.8944

1.3557

0.4273
0.544

0.609
0.647
0.963
1.003
is from simulated ground motion not from real earthquake
0.63

ground motion records. While a substantial amount of work

is based on PGA as IM, moreover, many hazard curves are
Magnitude

available representing PGA as indices. This makes PGA a

suitable IM. The curve is constructed assuming the lognor-
5.6
7.2
7.2
5.6
5.9
6.4
6.1
6.1
7.2
6.4

mal distribution. Indeed, EDP used are mostly MIDR for the
mid-rise building like in Refs. [22, 25], while McCrum et al.
silchar and station
Distance between

[28] used roof displacement as EDP. This paper considers

the effects of both single EDP and the combined or multiple
effects of EDP. The fragility curve obtained by consider-
10.21
28.39
38.88
38.88
68.22

81.17

ing only MIDR now henceforth known as SRPF curve and

65.1

138
Table 2  The details of ground motions extracted from COSMO VIRTUAL DATA CENTER for NE region

0
0

for the curve generated by using MIDR, Ѳ, and Δ is CRPF

curve. The equation used is,
Focal depth

[ ]
ln(LS) − ln PGA(g)
P(Demand > LS|IM ) = 1 − 𝛷 ,
34
90
90
34
49
117
119
119
90
117

𝜎ln
(1)
Epicentral distance

ln PGA (g) = a ln (MIDR) − b, (2)

where, Ф standardized normal distribution, LS limit state or
55.867
237.520
237.093
24.487
119.223
234.313
200.901
220.543
185.855
215.941

threshold limit of structure, IM, a and b regression param-

eters and σln lognormal standard deviation. Equation (a) is
used to develop the fragility curve. The same type of equa-
distance (km)

tion was adopted by Sudret et al. [26, 42–44] for their study.
Hypocentral

The equation (b) was used to derive the SRPF curve whereas
for CRPF curve equation (c) has been used which is given
253.6

128.9
261.9
233.5
250.6
206.5
245.6
65.4

41.9
254

below,

(3)
9th January 1990
9th January 1990

ln PGA (g) = c + d ln (MIDR) − e ln (𝜃) − f ln (Δ)

6th August 1988
6th August 1988

6th August 1988

18th May 1987
8th May 1997

8th May 1997

6th May 1995

6th May 1995

where, c, d, e, and f are regression parameters. The SRPF

curve and CRPF curve were plotted for all the four sample
buildings. Both the curves were compared for certain limit
Date

state and their behaviors were analyzed. And also fragility

curves for different bay ratio were drawn and compared.
Station name

Table 3 shows the regression parameter for SRPF curve

Maibang
Hajadisa
Jellalpur
Haflong
Haflong
Laisong

when ground motions are applied in the y-direction. The

Silchar
Silchar

Diphu
Dolo

lognormal standard deviation and mean are computed from

the regression parameters a and b.
motion no.

Table 4 shows the regression parameters when multiple

Ground

GM01
GM02
GM03
GM04
GM05
GM06
GM07
GM08
GM09
GM10

parameters taken into account with the NLTHA carried

13
 5  Page 6 of 17 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5

Table 4  Regression analysis Bay ratio ln PGA(g) = c + d ln(IDR) + e ln(Ѳ) − f ln(Δ) R2 Lognormal stand- Lognormal
for CRPF curve with ground ard deviation mean
motion in the y-direction C D E F

0.25 − 2.0456 1.1315 0.1358 0.4543 0.776 0.7398 − 1.6101

0.50 − 1.6115 1.6844 0.7133 1.4764 0.806 1.4756 − 1.7056
0.75 − 4.3s703 2.0027 − 0.1002 1.0324 0.788 1.4084 − 1.5989
1.00 − 11.4503 4.2168 − 1.1580 2.0710 0.788 3.2028 − 1.6141

Table 5  Regression analysis for SRPF curve with ground motion in 3 Results

the x-direction
Bay ratio ln PGA(g) = a R2 Lognormal Lognormal
3.1 Effects of single response parameter
ln(IDR) − b standard mean and combined response parameters
deviation
A B
The attempt  has been made  to see the effects of single
0.25 0.794 1.504 0.759 0.5087 − 1.612 and  combined  response  parameter. In order to compare
0.50 0.797 1.544 0.784 0.5099 − 1.581 their effects SRPF curve and CRPF curve has been drawn for
0.75 0.807 1.538 0.791 0.5155 − 1.538 the bay ratio mentioned at different limit states. The limit
1.00 0.788 1.407 0.758 0.5113 − 1.601 states chosen here are according to seismic zone capacity
such as 0.10 g, 0.16 g, 0.24 g, and 0.36 g. Figure 2 show
the SRPF curves with ground motion in the y-direction.
Figure 2 shows the SRPF curves for bay ratios 0.25, 0.50,
out along the y-direction. However, standard deviation
0.75 and 1.00 at limit states of 0.10 g, 0.16 g, 0.24 g, and
controls the shape of the fragility curve and here for bay
0.36 g. The POE of the threshold limit of 0.10 g is high
ratio 1.00, the standard deviation values are very high and
subsequently; its decreases as the threshold limit increases.
0.25 is low. The PGA which is IM of ground motion has a
The figures also show the nature of fragility curve at differ-
negative relation with Ѳ for bay ratio 0.75 and 1.00. From
ent limit states at different bay ratios. It is seen that if the
the table, we could also infer that the effect of MIDR is
building is assumed to have a capacity of 0.10 g then the
most prominent or has high influence as compared to the
building is highly vulnerable and less vulnerable for the limit
other two parameters as its coefficient is more among
state 0.36 g. Figure 2 is drawn for the different bay ratio, the
other.
curves obtained are not showing much difference or in other
Form Table 5, it has been observed that the value of
words, they are almost identical. This means that in the case
standard deviation is ranging from 0.5087 to 0.5155. Bay
of SRPF curve the bay ratio has almost no contribution to
ratio 0.25 has less standard deviation and for 0.75 and
the shape of fragility. In order to do the quantitative evalua-
1.00 the value is almost the same but little high for bay
tion for the SRPF curve, Table 7 is prepared to have a deeper
ratio 0.75. So hence it is quite understandable that the
understanding of the behavior of the curve.
bay ratio effects in case of SRPF curve are not so signifi-
Table 7 shows POE at 0.40 g, it is clear from the table
cant. Similarly, Table 6 shows the regression parameters
that the POE decreases as the threshold limit increases but
for deriving fragility curves for SRPF curve and CRPF
for each limit state the corresponding POE value for the dif-
curves, respectively when the ground motions are fed in
ferent bay ratio is very close. Although the POE is decreas-
x-direction.
ing for higher bay ratio but the differences in their value

Table 6  Regression analysis Bay ratio ln PGA(g) = c + d ln(IDR) + e ln(Ѳ) − f ln(Δ) R2 Lognormal Lognormal
for CRPF curve with ground standard devia- mean
motion in the x-direction C D E F tion

0.25 0.5166 1.3950 1.3775 1.9025 0.792 1.8555 − 1.5797

0.50 − 5.0683 2.5019 0.0433 1.6442 0.798 1.9614 − 1.5977
0.75 − 5.1571 2.5180 − 0.0048 1.5793 0.813 1.9621 − 1.5948
1.00 − 11.4503 4.2168 − 1.1580 2.0710 0.788 3.2028 − 1.6141

13
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5 Page 7 of 17  5

Fig. 2  The SRPF curve for Bay ratio a 0.25, b 0.50, c 0.75, and d 1.00 with ground motions in the y-direction

Table 7  POE of limit states Limit state (g) POE at 0.40 g

for buildings with the bay ratio
(0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00) Bay ratio 0.25 Bay ratio 0.50 Bay ratio 0.75 Bay ratio 1.00
at IM of 0.40 g when only
single response parameter is 0.10 0.9984 0.9981 0.9979 0.9963
considered with ground motion 0.16 0.9748 0.9720 0.9712 0.9626
in the y-direction 0.24 0.8624 0.8566 0.8551 0.8391
0.36 0.5890 0.5870 0.5864 0.5809

are very less. This means fragility curves derived from a demand parameters are considered and the fragility curves
single response parameter is contributing less in bay ratios were drawn for the same.
effect on it. So an alternative approach adopted to incorpo- Figure 3 shows the fragility curves derived after consider-
rate the bay ratio effects, since considering only one param- ing the effects of combined response parameter, which are
eter, is not sufficient to know the behavior of fragility curve MIDR, Ѳ, and Δ with ground motions in the y-direction.
distinctly. As a result, the combined or multiple effects of The trend of fragility curves observed here is same as for

13
 5  Page 8 of 17 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5

Fig. 3  CRPF curve for bay ratio a 0.25, b 0.50, c 0.75 and d 1.00 for different limit states with ground motions in the y-direction

SRPF curve shown in Fig. 3. Here also the performance of consideration of combined parameter. The POE is much
of the structure is less for limit states of 0.10 g and more lower than the one shown by Table 7. It gives the intui-
for 0.36 g. The collapse probability gets lower as we give tion that using only a single parameter can result in very
higher threshold limit. But the main differences between the conservative design. The structure is an integration of dif-
Figs. 2 and 3 is that the CRPF curves have a gentle slope ferent component or it is a combination of systems. During
and the slopes of the curves in case of combined response the seismic excitation, the structure undergoes deformation.
parameter get flattered and flatter with the increasing bay While very famous EDP used is MIDR for global collapse
ratio. So unlike the SRPF curves, CRPF curves show the but the structure failure could be due to any reason or com-
bay ratio effects. The extreme bay ratio as shown in Fig. 3a bination of reasons and it becomes important to think about
and d, there is a significantly large amount of difference in other parameters too, other than MIDR. In reality, the struc-
POE value at any IM which was not the case for SRPF curve. ture could fail like a system. During the failure mechanism,
Table 8 shows the POE at 0.40 g IM of CRPF curves there is always an interaction between different components
shown in Fig. 3. This gives intuition about the usefulness of the systems.

13
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5 Page 9 of 17  5

Table 8  POE of limit states Limit state (g) POE at 0.40 g

for buildings with the bay
ratio (0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and Bay ratio 0.25 Bay ratio 0.50 Bay ratio 0.75 Bay ratio 1.00
1.00) at IM of 0.40 g when
combined response parameter is 0.10 0.9707 0.8369 0.8259 0.6667
considered with ground motions 0.16 0.8913 0.7417 0.7322 0.6123
in the y-direction 0.24 0.7552 0.6431 0.6358 0.5631
0.36 0.5565 0.5299 0.5285 0.5131

When it comes to seeing the effects of bay ratio then it is also observed that at this point nature of curve getting
consideration of multiple EDP is important, as the single reverse. The points where these two types of curve meet
EDP does not provide the real scenario. Also from Fig. 3, are shown in Table 9.
it is clear that CRPF curve responds well to the number Table 9 shows the coordinates at which these two types of
of bay ratio. the curve (i.e., CRPF curve and SRPF curve) intersect with
Figure  4a–d shows the comparison between SRPF each other at different limit states. It is interesting to note
curves and CRPF curves at different limit states while here that all of them are meeting at 50% of exceedance rate
ground motions are feed in the y-direction. It is noticed and they get 50% of exceedance rate at exactly at those IM
that the single parameter curve has the stiff slope which for which the limit state has been provided. That means if
means its failure probability increases abruptly at par- the provided limit state is 0.10 g then the two curves meet
ticular IM. But in the case of the combined parameter, at the point with coordinate (0.10 g, 0.50) similarly for the
the slope is gentle and it is increasing consistently. The limit state of 0.16 g, the point of intersection is (0.16 g, 0.50)
structure like building just not fail only because of MIDR and the same for other cases also. For the given limit states
which is considered by most of the eminent researchers the points of intersections are the pivotal point, where the
but the point in this paper is to highlights that the structure nature of curves gets changed.
actually fails in multimode and to consider its effects is The same kind of pattern noticed for the fragility function
important. From the above Fig. 4, it is clear that the nature in x-direction also (Fig. 5). The curves are intersecting at the
of SRPF curve exhibits abrupt with the steep slope. This same point as mentioned in Table 9. POE for x-direction is
abrupt nature of the curve may be due to the consideration comparatively less than the one in y-direction for both single
of a single parameter. Structure fails due to load acting and combined parameters.
on it. In the case of seismic load, it is uncertain and sud- Tables 10 and 11 shows the POE at IM of 0.40 g when
den. When only one parameter is considered then there ground motions are fed in the x-direction. Indeed, it is
may be a chance that at certain load the structural perfor- observed that the values becomes much less for CRPF curve
mance may not be sufficient or just to say the functionality than in SRPF curve. Percentage variation for both type of
of considered parameter is over, due to which the curve curve is shown below.
shows the abrupt rise in slope but in case of combined From Tables  12 and 13, it is clear that the variation
parameter, even if the one EDP fails to meet performance between the SRPF curve and CRPF curve becomes more in
criteria but other EDP may be still in functional mode and case of the x-direction and it increases with the increase in
they may be still within the permissible limit which helps the bay ratio. It means as the stiffness of building increases,
the structure to withstand even at the higher seismic load. the contribution from combined parameter also increases
Simply relying on the only one parameter is not enough. and neglecting the effect of the combined parameter in fra-
Figure 4a shows comparison of SRPF curve with CRPF gility analysis could result in very conservative design.
curve for bay ratio 0.25, however, it is seen that these two Figure 6a–c shows the comparison of the curves in both
curves are intersecting each other at some points but the x- and y-direction. It is clearly indicating the proneness of
gap between these two curves is not that much but as the building in the y-direction being more. It is interesting to
bay ratio increases the gap between these two curves get notice that the gap between the curves in x- and y-directions
more and more implying that as the bay ratio increases, the being reduced as the bay ratio approaches towards 1.00.
contribution of combined parameter becomes prominent. No matter in which direction the excitation is, the build-
When the bay ratio increases along any direction of the ing always showing the same pattern of exceedance. The
buildings, its stiffness also increases in the direction. As y-direction becomes dominant here, so this dominance could
a result it could be concluded that the stiffer the building, be reduced, if the shear wall is provided along this direc-
the more is the contribution of the combined parameter. tion. At lower IM the POE for x-direction is more because
But considering in Fig. 4, both types of curves (i.e., SRPF of the high moment of inertia but at the higher IM, it shows
curve and CRPF curve) are intersecting at some point. And comparatively less POE which shows the contribution of

13
 5  Page 10 of 17 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5

Fig. 4  CRPF curve vs. SRPF curve for the Bay ratio a 0.25, b 0.50, c 0.75 and d 1.00, respectively with ground motions in the y-direction

Table 9  The coordinates at Limit state (g) PGA (g) POE

3.2 Effects of bay ratio in fragility analysis
which SRPF curve and CRPF
curve intersects for particular 0.10 0.10 0.50 The efforts have been made to see the contribution of the bay
limit states
0.16 0.16 0.50 ratio in the fragility of building considered. The curves are
0.24 0.24 0.50 drawn for different bay ratio at each limit states.
0.36 0.36 0.50 Figure 7a shows an SRPF curve for the different bay ratio
for threshold limit of 0.36 g. The curves are obtained in a
very close range. The extend view in Fig. 7b shows that,
the stiffness of structure at higher PGA. Thus at low IM there are differences in minute level. The 0.25 bay ratio fail-
contribution of inertia is more but once the exceedance prob- ure probability is still more in high IM as compared with
ability cross 50% then stiffness take charge of the shape of other. But as we see in Fig. 7c, the nature of fragility curve
fragility curves. starts reverse making the slope of the curve for 0.25 more,

13
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5 Page 11 of 17  5

Fig. 5  CRPF curve vs. SRPF curve for Bay ratio a 0.25, b 0.50, c 0.75 and d 1.00 for ground motions in the x-direction

Table 10  POE of limit states Limit states (g) POE at 0.40 g

for buildings with the bay
ratio (0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and Bay ratio 0.25 Bay ratio 0.50 Bay ratio 0.75 Bay ratio 1.00
1.00) at IM of 0.40 g when
single response parameter is 0.10 0.9968 0.9967 0.9966 0.9963
considered with ground motions 0.16 0.9641 0.9638 0.9634 0.9626
in the x-direction 0.24 0.8424 0.8418 0.8411 0.8391
0.36 0.5820 0.5818 0.5816 0.5809

13
 5  Page 12 of 17 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5

Table 11  POE of limit states for Limit states (g) POE at 0.40 g

buildings with bay ratio (0.25,
0.50, 0.75 and 1.00) at IM of Bay ratio 0.25 Bay ratio 0.50 Bay ratio 0.75 Bay ratio 1.00
0.40 g when combined response
parameters are considered 0.10 0.7728 0.7602 0.7600 0.6667
with ground motions in the 0.16 0.6890 0.6799 0.6797 0.6123
x-direction 0.24 0.6084 0.6029 0.6025 0.5631
0.36 0.5226 0.5216 0.5213 0.5131

Table 12  The variation between Limit states (g) Variation in percentage (%)

SRPF curve and CRPF curve
in percentage (%) for the Bay ratio 0.25 Bay ratio 0.50 Bay ratio 0.75 Bay ratio 1.00
y-direction
0.10 2.7744 16.1507 17.2362 33.0824
0.16 8.5659 23.6934 24.6087 36.3910
0.24 12.4304 24.9241 25.6461 32.8924
0.36 5.5178 9.7274 9.8738 11.6715

Table 13  The variation between Limit states (g) Variation in percentage (%)

SRPF curve and CRPF curve
in percentage (%) for the Bay ratio 0.25 Bay ratio 0.50 Bay ratio 0.75 Bay ratio 1.00
x-direction
0.10 22.4719 23.7283 23.7407 33.0824
0.16 28.5344 29.4563 29.4478 36.3910
0.24 27.7778 28.3797 28.3676 32.8924
0.36 10.2062 10.3472 10.3680 11.6715

followed by the bay ratio 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00. The thresh- 4 Discussions and conclusions
old value or limit states that we choose for deriving fragil-
ity curves plays an important role in the nature of fragility 4.1 Discussions
curves. Here the point of intersection is (0.36 g, 0.50); at
the point, the behavior of curve is getting reverse. So the During the literature survey, it was found that the research-
threshold limit should be selected cautiously to analyze the ers essentially have adopted only one EDP (mostly MIDR)
performance of the structure. The same process has been for deriving fragility curve. This paper made an effort to
followed for combined parameters too. include effects of multiple parameters (i.e., Ѳ and Δ along
Figure 8 shows the CRPF curve for the different bay ratio. with MIDR). The fragility curves were drawn considering
Same as in case of single parameter too, it also showing the only a single parameter and combined parameters. Also, the
same kinds of trend. From this behavior, it could be con- most of the work is done to see the effects of the number of
cluded that the combined effect of EDPs shows more distinct story in fragility curve. However, past work is silent about
visualization; also since it includes more than one EDP it the effect of bay ratio in fragility curves adopted for the cur-
could actually give the more realistic result. rent study. Indeed, the following observations made from the
Figure  9 shows the effects of bay ratio when ground results obtained are as:
motion is seeded in the x-direction. Unlike in y-direction,
the x-direction fragility curve has the close range, they are 1. The fragility function obtained using a single parameter
very near to each other which depicts the fact that building is is not sufficient/reliable and the effects of bay ratio on
considerably stronger along the direction. Though the prone- fragility curve are to be examined considering multiple
ness of building decreases from 0.25 bay ratio to 1.00 bay EDPs. In Fig. 2, it is seen that the curves close to each
ratio but practically the bay ratio 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 have other almost coinciding and from Table 7, it becomes
the almost same POE. The contribution of the bay ratio in clear that a significant difference in POE value observed
higher stiffer (x-direction) side becomes less prominent than at particular IM (0.40 g), but in a very minute level
that of lower stiffer (y-direction) side. which means that there is a need to look for the alter-

13
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5 Page 13 of 17  5

Fig. 6  Comparison between CRPF curves when ground motions are fed in x- and y-direction for Bay ratio a 0.25, b 0.50 and c 0.75

nate approach to see the bay ratio effects on the fragility parameter even if the one EDP fails to meet performance
curve. criteria but other EDP may be still in functional mode
2. Figure 3 depicted that the influence of combined param- and they may be still within the permissible limit which
eter increases as the bay ratio increases. However, one helps the structure to withstand even at the higher seis-
parameter is considered only when there may be a mic load. So fragility curve derived from multiple EDP
chance that at certain load, the structural performance is better for high IM.
may not be sufficient or just to say that the functionality 3. Figure 4 shows the comparison of SRPF curve with
of considered parameter is over, due to which the curve CRPF curve. The SRPF curve has a very steep slope.
shows the abrupt rise in slope but in case of combined The collapse probability increases abruptly whereas for

13
 5  Page 14 of 17 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5

Fig. 7  a SRPF curves for different Bay ratios, b–d enlarged view of the indicated portion with ground motion in the y-direction

the CRPF curve, the slope is gentle and consistently lead to the conservative design of the building if it is
increasing. designed considering with only a single parameter.
4. Both types of curves are intersecting at one point and 5. The building is more critical in the y-direction as the
the coordinate of that point is (0.36 g, 0.50). This point collapse probability is higher. This dominance could be
is a pivotal point where the nature of the curves getting reduced if the lateral loads resisting system such as a
reverse. Before reaching the point the SRPF curve is shear wall placed along this direction.
underestimating the collapse probability, whereas it is 6. The proneness to damage of building is high for a limit
overestimating after the point of intersection. This could state 0.10 g having low capacity design and less for the

13
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5 Page 15 of 17  5

Fig. 8  a CRPF curves for different Bay ratio and the b enlarged view of the indicated portion with ground motion in the y-direction

0.36 g, as a result the designed standard should be met 1. The multiple EDPs must be incorporated to derive fra-
properly to enhance the performance of the structure. gility function because single EDP neglects the redun-
7. When the bay ratio increases along any direction of the dancy of the structure during the seismic excitation.
buildings, its stiffness also increases in the direction. So 2. The fragility function derived considering single param-
it could be concluded that the stiffer the building, the eter, fails to show the bay ratio effects on the curve.
more is the contribution of the combined parameters. 3. As the bay ratio increases the combined parameter
becomes more and more active and hence, its influence
4.2 Conclusions on the curve also tends increases.
4. At a lower IM, the mass inertia contribution becomes
The building is the combination of various components and more but at higher IM, stiffness contribution/participate
it is considered as a system performance. It fails due to the more in fragility function.
load acting on it, and when the system fails, it fails not only 5. The limit state plays an important role in defining the
due to the failure of the single parameter but it fails when the shape of nature of fragility curve. Hence, the limit state
associated parameters together fails to withstand the load. should be chosen wisely to know the performance of the
The following conclusions could be drawn from the present structure.
study as:

13
 5  Page 16 of 17 Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5

Fig. 9  a CRPF curves for the different Bay ratio b–d enlarged view of indicated portion with ground motion in the x-direction

6. The building is more critical in the y-direction at higher 3. Hwang HH, Huo J-R (1994) Generation of hazard-consistent
IM, however, for low IM, x-direction is more critical. fragility curves for seismic loss estimation studies. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 13(5):345–354
7. Bay ratio 0.25 is highly prone to damage and bay ratio 4. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T (2000) Statistical
1.00 is less prone. So symmetrical configuration of the analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech 126(12):1224–1231
building is safe for human habitation. 5. Porter K, Kennedy R, Bachman R (2007) Creating fragil-
ity functions for performance-based earthquake engineering.
Earthq Spectra 23(2):471–489
6. Ioannou I, Douglas J, Rossetto T (2015) Assessing the impact of
ground-motion variability and uncertainty on empirical fragility
curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:83–92
References 7. Borele SV, Datta D (2015) Damage assessment of structural sys-
tem using fragility curves. J Civ Eng Environ Technol 2(11):72–76
8. Korkmaz K (2008) Evaluation of seismic fragility analyses. In:
1. Kennedy RP, Ravindra MK (1984) Seismic fragilities for The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering
nuclear power plant risk studies. Nucl Eng Des 79(1):47–68 9. Réveillère A, Gehl P, Seyedi D, Modaressi H (2012) Devel-
2. Hwang BHHM, Jaw J (1990) Probabilistic damage analysis of opment of seismic fragility curves for damaged reinforced
structures. J Struct Eng 116(7):1992–2007

13
Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (2019) 4:5 Page 17 of 17  5

concrete structures. In: 15th world conference on earthquake framed structure. Open Constr Build Technol J 10(Suppl 1:
engineering M2):42–51
10. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G 29. Ellingwood BR, Rosowsky DV, Pang W (2008) Performance of
(2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of light-frame wood residential construction subjected to earthquakes
R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):391–413 in regions of moderate seismicity. J Struct Eng 134(8):1353–1363
11. Frankie TM, Gencturk B, Elnashai AS (2012) Simulation-based 30. Kwon OS, Elnashai A (2006) The effect of material and ground
fragility relationships for unreinforced masonry buildings. J motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC
Struct Eng 139(3):400–410 structure. Eng Struct 28(2):289–303
12. Mosalam KM, Ayala G, White RN, Roth C (1997) Seismic fra- 31. Ay BÖ, Akkar S (2014) Evaluation of a recently proposed record
gility of LRC frames with and without masonry infill walls. J selection and scaling procedure for low-rise to mid-rise reinforced
Earthq Eng 1(4):693–720 concrete buildings and its use for probabilistic risk assessment
13. Farsangi EN, Rezvani FH, Talebi M, Hashemi SAH (2014) seis- studies. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(6):889–908
mic risk analysis of steel-MRFs by means of fragility curves in 32. Uniform Building Code (1997) Uniform building code. In: Ameri-
high seismic zones. Adv Struct Eng 17(9):1227–1240 can Association of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 2, 545
14. Seyedi D, Gehl P, Douglas J, Davenne L, Mezher N, Ghavamian 33. Dymiotis C, Kappos AJ, Chryssanthopoulos MK (1999) Seismic
S (2010) Development of seismic fragility surfaces for rein- reliability of RC frames with uncertain drift and member capacity.
forced concrete buildings by means of nonlinear time-history J Struct Eng 125(9):1038–1047
analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(1):91–108 34. Reyes JC, Kalkan E (2012) How many records should be used in
15. Vona M (2014) Fragility curves of existing RC buildings based an ASCE/SEI-7 ground motion scaling procedure? Earthq Spectra
on specific structural performance levels. Open J Civ Eng 28(3):1223–1242
4(2):120–134 35. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) A vector-valued ground motion
16. Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H, Pinho R, Sousa R (2014) Evalu- intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon.
ation of analytical methodologies used to derive vulnerability Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(10):1193–1217
functions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(2):181–204 36. Wang Y, Rosowsky DV (2014) Effects of earthquake ground
17. Billah AHMM, Alam MS (2015) Seismic fragility assessment of motion selection and scaling method on performance-based engi-
highway bridges: a state-of-the-art review. Structure and infra- neering of wood-frame structures. J Struct Eng 140(11):1–11
structure engineering. Taylor and Francis, Didcot 37. Kumar A (2004) Software for generation of spectrum compatible
18. Colapietro D, Netti A, Fiore A, Fatiguso F, Marano GC (2014) time history. In: Proceedings of 13th world conference on earth-
On the definition of seismic recovery interventions in r.c. build- quake engineering, 1–6
ings by non-linear static and incremental dynamic analyses. Int 38. Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB (2004) The use of real earthquake accel-
J Mech 8(October):216–222 erograms as input to dynamic analysis. J Earthq Eng 8(1):43–91
19. Hancilar U, Çaktö E, Erdik M, Franco GE, Deodatis G (2014) 39. Samanta A, Pandey P (2018) Effects of ground motion modifica-
Earthquake vulnerability of school buildings: probabilistic tion methods and ground motion duration on seismic performance
structural fragility analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 67:169–178 of a 15-storied building. J Build Eng 15(January 2017):14–25
20. Lin K, Li Y, Lu X, Guan H (2017) Effects of seismic and pro- 40. Akkar S, Sucuoǧlu H, Yakut A (2005) Displacement-based fragil-
gressive collapse designs on the vulnerability of RC frame ity functions for low- and mid-rise ordinary concrete buildings.
structures. J Perform Constr Facil 31(1):4016079 Earthq Spectra 21(4):901–927
21. Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS (1996) Method for probabilistic 41. Kafali C, Grigoriu M (2007) Seismic fragility analysis: application
evaluation of seismic structural damage by Ajay Singhal! and to simple linear and nonlinear systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
Anne S. Kiremidjian 1. J Struct Eng 122(12):1459–1467 36(June):1885–1900
22. Kirçil MS, Polat Z (2006) Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C 42. Sudret B, Mai CV (2013) Computing seismic fragility curves
frame buildings. Eng Struct 28(9):1335–1345 using polynomial chaos expansions. In: 11th International con-
23. Ibrahim YE, El-Shami MM (2011) Seismic fragility curves for ference on structural safety and reliability (ICOSSAR 2013)
mid-rise reinforced concrete frames in Kingdom of Saudi Ara- 43. Sil A, Longmailai T (2017) Drift reliability assessment of a four
bia. IES J Part A Civ Struct Eng 4(4):213–223 storey residential building under seismic loading considering mul-
24. Kumar SSBS, Rao GVR, Raju PM (2016) Seismic fragility tiple factors. J Inst Eng (India) Ser A. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
analysis of regular and setback RCC frames—a few hypotheti- s4003​0-017-0216-0
cal case studies. Asian J Civ Eng 17(5):551–569 44. Sil A, Gourab D, Pritam H (2019) Characteristics of FBD and
25. Erberik MA, Elnashai AS (2004) Fragility analysis of flat-slab DDBD techniques for SMRF buildings designed for seismic zone-
structures. Eng Struct 26(7):937–948 V in India. J Build Pathol Rehabil. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4102​
26. Zentner I, Gündel M, Bonfils N (2017) Fragility analysis meth- 4-018-0040-6
ods: review of existing approaches and application. Nucl Eng
Des 323:245–258 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
27. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analy- jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
sis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514
28. Mccrum DP, Amato G, Suhail R (2016) Development of seismic
fragility functions for a moment resisting reinforced concrete

13