Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s13369-015-1758-y
Received: 1 August 2014 / Accepted: 8 June 2015 / Published online: 27 June 2015
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2015
Abstract This study presents the fragility curve for steel in identifying the performance level [1]. It can also be ex-
and concrete frames based on near-field (NF) and far-field pressed as the maximum desired extent of damage to a struc-
(FF) ground motion records. The fragility curve is calibrated ture under a specific earthquake design level.
to the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) curve based on The drift performance level varies depending on the guide-
building materials and frame heights. The frames are de- lines that result from intensive research. For example, FEMA-
signed according to Eurocodes. This study uses seven ground 273 [2] classifies the performance level into four categories,
motion records for NF and another seven records for FF. The namely operational phase (OP) with 0.5 % drift, immediate
five performance levels prescribed by FEMA-273 are used occupancy (IO) with 1.0 % drift, life safety (LS) with less
as structure performance benchmarks in generating the IDA than 2.5 % drift, and collapse prevention (CP) with more than
curve. Results based on the NF and FF records indicate that 2.5 % drift.
a three-storey steel frame is stiffer than a concrete frame. By The PBSD is incorporated with incremental dynamic
contrast, the results for a six-storey structure show that a steel analysis (IDA) to determine the structure drift and develop the
frame is more suitable than low-rise and mid-rise frames. The structure fragility curve. The fragility curve is a log-normal
fragility curve results show that the probability of reaching function that expresses the probability of reaching or exceed-
or exceeding a specified damage state can be determined. ing a specific damage state. The fragility curve is a highly
useful method in predicting the extent of probable damage.
Keywords Fragility curve Drift IDA Performance It can describe the probability of a structure being damaged
level Ground motion records beyond a specific state when subjected to different levels of
ground shaking [3,4].
The fragility curve was introduced to provide accurate
1 Introduction predictions of damage to structures and non-structures. This
method is unique because every developed curve depends
Building damages can be related to structure displacement on ground motions. Numerous researchers have developed
or drift. Drift is normally used as a damage parameter to es- fragility curves for different structure types [311].
timate the performance level of a building structure. Drift Malaysia is categorized as having low seismicity, but this
can be measured using the performance damage level in issue should be taken seriously. Thus, the current study was
performance-based seismic design (PBSD), which is a new conducted to develop the fragility curve for low-rise and
approach to earthquake-resistant design. Drift can be de- mid-rise steel and reinforced concrete frames. In this study,
scribed by considering the maximum allowable damage state we present the development of the fragility curve based on
a simplified fragility curve equation that is based on near-
B Fadzli Mohamed Nazri and far-field ground motion records. A central goal was to
cefmn7@gmail.com (1) determine drift analysis based on different materials and
1 heights that affect dynamic loading and (2) develop the seis-
Disaster Research Nexus, School of Civil Engineering,
Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 14300, mic fragility curve for steel and concrete frame structures. For
Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia a country like Malaysia, the effects of the near- and far-field
123
2302 Arab J Sci Eng (2015) 40:23012307
earthquake to the structure will be a good input for designers, Table 1 Beam and column sizes of the steel frame
engineers, and practitioners as a reference in seismic design. No. of storey Beam size (mm) Column size (mm)
The impacts of the structural damage can be clearly observed
from the drift results. 3 533 210 109 305 305 198
6 533 210 82 305 305 198
2 Methodology
Table 2 Beam cross section for the concrete frame
The general flowchart for this study is shown in Fig. 1. No. of storey Beam size Reinforcement Shear link
Moment-resisting frames (MRFs) were designed using two (mm) (mm)
different materials and two structural heights.
3 300 700 6T25 8 mm link at
150 mm c/c
Moment-Resisting Frame Design 6 300 700 4T32 8 mm link at
150 mm c/c
SAP 2000
[12], EC2 [13], and EC8 standards. The steel grade, f y , was
assumed as S275 for the steel frame. The natural periods for
three-storey and six-storey structures were 0.44 and 0.74 s,
Ground Motion respectively. The frames were designed with beam and col-
Repeat the analysis with different
Records
umn dimensions listed in Table 1. Several assumptions were
ground motion records
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2015) 40:23012307 2303
Table 4 Selective ground motion records for NF and Pang [15] stated that drift is a mean drift calculated by
Name record Earthquake location Year dividing the displacement with the total building height.
After the IDA curve in peak ground acceleration (PGA)
NGA 0146 Coyote Lake 1979 drift was developed in format form, the fragility curve was
NGA 0235 Mammoth Lake 1980 plotted using the suggested limit state [16]. The mean and
NGA 0318 Westmorland 1981 standard deviations for every limit state were then calculated.
NGA 0545 Chalfant Valley-02 1986 Many equations are used to generate the fragility curve. How-
NGA 0680 Whittier Narrows 1987 ever, Eq. (1) was used because it has already been simplified
NGA 1646 Sierra Madre 1991 by Ibrahim and El-Shami [3].
NGA 1740 Litte Skull Mountain 1992
Fig. 2 Examples of IDA curves based on NF records for a concrete frame structure. a Three-storey concrete frame. b Six-storey concrete frame
123
2304 Arab J Sci Eng (2015) 40:23012307
Fig. 3 Examples of IDA curves based on FF records for a concrete frame structure. a Three-storey concrete frame. b Six-storey concrete frame
and FF records for the three- and six-storey concrete frame discussion. Figure 4 shows the drift based on the structural
structures. material and height for the NF and FF records.
The drift analysis based on structural material and height The graphs show that the storey drift profiles for the three-
were determined using the IDA curve data. The drift was storey NF and FF are similar in appearance, which is similar
based on the IDA curve at a PGA of 0.6 g. The structures to the storey drift profiles for the six-storey NF and FF. How-
were already unstable at such PGA; thus, 0.6 g was consid- ever, every storey of the NF and FF has a different drift
ered as the critical PGA for the frame structures. Considering percentage. The distribution of the storey drift over height
these facts, we selected the drift results at 0.6 g for further for a three-storey frame is almost uniform, which shows that
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2015) 40:23012307 2305
Table 6 Parameters of
No. of storeys OP IO DC LS CP
log-normal distributions for
steel and concrete frames based
on NF
Steel
3 1.455 0.885 1.292 0.772 1.529 0.412 1.230 0.408 1.009 0.409
6 2.532 1.183 2.087 1.081 1.704 1.063 1.431 1.058 1.591 1.104
Concrete
3 1.938 0.575 1.486 0.512 1.177 0.340 0.900 0.373 0.957 0.103
6 2.579 0.449 2.027 0.454 1.447 0.462 1.056 0.447 1.022 0.389
Table 7 Parameters of
No. of storeys OP IO DC LS CP
log-normal distributions for
steel and concrete frames based
on FF
Steel
3 1.536 0.716 1.427 0.378 1.013 0.380 0.993 0.372 0.772 0.372
6 2.754 0.573 2.041 0.454 1.543 0.422 1.205 0.415 1.128 0.407
Concrete
3 2.515 0.740 1.876 0.639 1.518 0.517 1.249 0.395 1.079 0.323
6 3.245 0.407 2.489 0.321 1.991 0.342 1.574 0.401 1.333 0.396
the deflected structure shape is an almost straight line. The Seismic fragility is represented in this study by a damage
distribution of storey height for the six-storey frame is non- probability curve (i.e. fragility curve). The fragility curves
uniform in shape because it is influenced by ground motions. are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 based on the tabulated results and
Figure 4a shows that the maximum storey drifts of the Eq. 1.
three-storey steel and concrete frames under the NF records Four figures of the fragility curves were developed, namely
are 2.57 and 2.08 %, respectively, which occur on the second three-storey steel, three-storey concrete, six-storey steel, and
storey. Figure 4b shows that the maximum storey drift of the six-storey concrete based on a comparison between NF and
six-storey concrete frame under the FF records is 11.40 %, FF. The critical result for the three-storey frame was con-
which occurs on the top storeys. The maximum storey drift crete, whereas that for the six-storey frame was steel. The
of the six-storey steel frame is 6.32 %, which occurs on the following observations were noted. The PGA at 0.2 g was
third storey. The drift exceeded the CP level based on the considered as weak ground motions. The OP performance
limit state. levels for concrete NF and FF had probability values of ap-
Figure 4c shows that the maximum storey drift of the proximately 71 and 88 %, respectively. The probability at the
steel frame under the FF records is 2.03 %, which occurs CP level was 0 % for NF and approximately 5 % for FF. The
on the second storey. The maximum storey drift of the con- probability of reaching or exceeding the OP level was 100 %
crete frame under the FF records is 5.47 %, which occurs on for NF and FF when strong ground motions were exposed
the first storey. The critical drift of the steel frame for the six- at 0.5 g. The probability values were approximately 99 and
storey structures under the FF records (Fig. 4d) is 10.89 %, 88 % for NF and FF, respectively, at the CP level.
which occurs on the fourth storey, whereas the critical drift For the six-storey frame, the probability of reaching and
of the concrete frame is 18.15 %, which occurs on the sixth exceeding the OP level was 99 % for NF records and 100 %
storey. Thus, we conclude that the maximum storey drift ex- for FF records, whereas the CP performance levels were 7
ceeded the LS and CP levels compared with the limit state. and 24 % for NF and FF, respectively, when the PGA was
0.2 g. When the PGA was 0.5 g, the probability for both NF
3.2 Fragility Curve and FF was 100 % for the OP performance level. The prob-
ability values were approximately 80 and 94 % for NF and
Two parameters (i.e. mean and standard deviation) are re- FF, respectively, for the CP performance level.
quired to develop the fragility curve. The mean and standard FF records generally provided a higher percentage of prob-
deviation of PGA were calculated at every point across the ability of reaching or exceeding the OP level when exposed
limit state vertical gridlines at drifts of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and to weak or strong ground motions. However, which records
2.5 %. Calculated parameters are listed in Tables 6 and 7. can provide a higher percentage of probability for CP level
123
2306 Arab J Sci Eng (2015) 40:23012307
Fig. 5 Fragility curve for a three-storey frame. a Fragility curve for a steel frame. b Fragility curve for a concrete frame
Fig. 6 Fragility curve for a six-storey structure. a Fragility curve for a steel frame. b Fragility curve for a concrete frame
cannot be determined because the result does not have a clear records. The drift profiles indicate that the steel frame
pattern. is stiffer than the concrete frame for the three-storey
structures under the NF and FF records. However, the
4 Conclusions concrete frame is stiffer than the steel frames for six-
storey structures under the NF and FF records.
This study attempts to develop the fragility curve for steel (ii) The fragility curves are developed based on the type
and concrete frame structures. The structure frames, which of material used, as well as the height and under dif-
are three and six storeys in height, are designed based on the ferent ground motion records. The fragility curve or
EC. SAP 2000 software is used as the main tool to analyse damage probability curve is based on the limit states
the dynamic loading of the structures. Seven ground motions of five performance levels, which are OP, IO, DC,
classified as NF and FF are used in the analysis. The drift LS, and CP. The three-storey steel frame demonstrates
parameter is considered as one of the key elements in devel- the highest probability of reaching or exceeding the
oping the fragility curve. The following conclusions can be OP (72 %) and CP (7 %) levels based on the ground
drawn from this study: motion records for NF. The concrete frame has the
highest probability of reaching or exceeding the OP
(i) The drift profiles of the three- and six-storey struc- level at 98 % for the six-storey structures. The steel
tures under the NF records are almost similar. How- frame has the highest probability of damage at the
ever, they have different drift percentages. Similar CP level (50 %). The concrete frame has the high-
findings are obtained from the structures under the FF est probability of reaching or exceeding the OP level
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2015) 40:23012307 2307
based on the FF records, which registers 89 % for the 3. Ibrahim, Y.E.; El-Shami, M.M.: Seismic fragility curves for mid-
three-storey structures and 100 % for the six-storey rise reinforced concrete frames in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. IES
J. Part A Civil Struct. Eng. 4(4), 213223 (2011)
structures. The concrete frame also records the high- 4. Silva, V. et al.: Evaluation of analytical methodologies used to de-
est probability for both storeys at the CP level, which rive vulnerability functions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 43(2), 181
registers 5 % for the three-storey structures and 24 % 204 (2014)
for the six-storey structures. 5. Farsangi, E.N. et al.: Seismic risk analysis of steel-MRFs by
means of fragility curves in high seismic zones. Adv. Struct.
(iii) The higher probability of reaching the OP level oc- Eng. 17(9), 12271240 (2014)
curred at the FF records as shown in a comparison 6. Moharrami, H.; Amini, M.A.: Seismic vulnerability assessment
of the fragility curves between NF and FF records. of process towers using fragility curves. Struct. Des. Tall Spec.
Concrete material exhibited a higher probability of Build. 23(8), 593603 (2014)
7. Siqueira, G.H. et al.: Fragility curves for isolated bridges in eastern
OP for both NF and FF records. However, NF records
Canada using experimental results. Eng. Struct. 74, 311324 (2014)
produced the maximum probability of damage for the 8. Negulescu, C. et al.: Fragility curves for masonry structures sub-
steel frame structure at the CP level stage. Meanwhile, mitted to permanent ground displacements and earthquakes. Nat.
a concrete frame has the highest probability of dam- Hazards 74(3), 114 (2014)
9. Bakhshi, A.; Asadi, P.: Probabilistic evaluation of seismic de-
age for the frame structure exposed to the FF records. sign parameters of RC frames based on fragility curves. Sci.
Iran. 20(2), 231241 (2013)
The study results show that the structural vulnerabilities re- 10. Manafpour, A.R.; Moghaddam, P.K.: Probabilistic approach to
flect the assumptions made by referring to EC8 (i.e. behav- performance-based seismic design of RC frames. In: Vulnerability,
Uncertainty, and Risk@ sQuantification, Mitigation, and Manage-
iour factor and soil class). Although making an assumption ment. ASCE (2014)
based on the ground motion records is impossible, using rec- 11. Hancilar, U. et al.: Earthquake vulnerability of school build-
ommendations from the EC as guidelines for design purposes ings: probabilistic structural fragility analyses. Soil Dyn. Earthq.
is the fundamental approach. Thus, further investigations Eng. 67, 169178 (2014)
12. BSI: Eurocode 3: design of steel structuresPart 1-1: general rules
should be conducted by focusing on the behaviour factor and rules for building. In: BS EN: 1993-1-1: 2005, British Stan-
recommended in the EC, soilstructure interaction based on dards Institution, London, 2005
different soil types, and design connections. 13. BSI: Eurocode 2: design of concrete structurePart 1-1: general
rules and rules for buildings, In: BS EN: 1992-1-1: 2004, London,
Acknowledgments This research was supported by Universiti Sains British Standards Institution, 2004
Malaysia under Research University (Individual) Grant (814223) and 14. Li, Y.; Fan, F.; Hong, H.: Influence of number of records and scaling
MyBrain15. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for sug- on the statistics of seismic demand for lattice structure. Thin-
gestions and comments. Walled Struct. 87, 115126 (2015)
15. Nazri, F.M.; Pang, Y.K.: Seismic performance of moment resisting
steel frame subjected to earthquake excitations. Front. Struct. Civil
Eng. 8(1), 1925 (2014)
References 16. Xue, Q. et al.: The draft code for performance-based seismic design
of buildings in Taiwan. Eng. Struct. 30(6), 15351547 (2008)
1. Hokmabadi, A.; Fatahi, B.; Samali, B.: Recording inter-storey drifts
of structures in time-history approach for seismic design of building
frames. Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 13(2), 175 (2012)
2. FEMA-273: 73: NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation
of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997)
123