Structural Safety 32 (2010) 42–51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structural Safety
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/strusafe

Response Surface with random factors for seismic fragility of reinforced

concrete frames
N. Buratti, B. Ferracuti, M. Savoia *
DISTART-Structural Engineering, University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Seismic fragility curves for reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures are evaluated considering the uncer-
Received 25 February 2008 tainties in both structural parameters and seismic excitation. Response Surface (RS) models with random
Received in revised form 20 April 2009 block effects are used to solve the problem in an approximate way with good computational efficiency.
Accepted 24 June 2009
The RS models are calibrated through numerical data obtained by non-linear incremental dynamic anal-
Available online 25 July 2009
yses performed using different sets of ground-motions, strength distributions in frame elements, and val-
ues of the random variables adopted to describe the uncertainties in the structural behaviour. The present
Keywords:
work is mainly focused on the problem of obtaining a reasonable compromise between result soundness
Seismic reliability
Response Surface
and computational effort. With reference to a three storey frame structure, a series of numerical tests is
Fragility curves presented. Different simulation plans, defined following the theory of Design of Experiments (DOE), and
Practical reliability methods simplified polynomial RS models are employed. The fragility curves obtained by different methods are
compared, using the results from full Monte Carlo simulation as the reference solution.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The assessment of structural reliability against earthquakes is
presently one of the most interesting topics in seismic engineering,
from both research and application point of view [1]. In seismic
reliability analysis, the fragility functions of the structures, to-
gether with the seismic hazard of the considered site, are the fun-
damental information required for the risk assessment. Hence, a
great research effort has been devoted to the development of effi-
cient procedures for the evaluation of the fragility functions. Re-
views of recent studies can be found in Pinto et al. [2] and Der
Kiureghian [3]. The main difficulties when performing a complete
structural reliability analysis depend on (i) the large number of
random variables required to describe the uncertainties affecting
the structural behaviour (ii) the complex modelling of the uncer-
tainty related with the definition of the ground-motion.
The fragility functions can be generated by using [4]: (i) obser-
vation of damages caused by earthquakes, (ii) experimental data
(usually at the component level), (iii) detailed analytical models,
(iv) simplified analytical models, and (v) design information and
engineering judgement.
The different procedures listed above have different degrees of
accuracy. In principle, data collected from actual earthquakes or
from experimental tests provide for information with the highest
confidence. They can be used to develop a fragility model for some
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0512093254; fax: +39 0512093236.
E-mail address: marco.savoia@unibo.it (M. Savoia).
categories of recurrent structures. In other cases, they can give use-
ful data to verify the predictions of analytical models. Simplified or
detailed analytical models may be used to predict the structural
behaviour under earthquakes: analytical models can take random-
ness and uncertainties in earthquake and structure into account.
Since the mid-seventies, simplified analytical models (named
‘‘practical reliability methods”) specialized for seismic problems
have been developed mainly with reference to nuclear and other
important installations [2]. Recently, these approaches have been
set in a clear theoretical framework and have been applied also
for more ordinary types of constructions. Several applications of
this kind of methods can be found in the literature, see for exam-
ple: Hwang and Jaw [4]; Hwang and Huo [5]; Singhal and Kiremidj-
ian [6], [7]; Shinozuka et al. [8]; Cornell et al. [9]; Rosowsky and
Ellingwood [10]; Wen et al. [11]; Ramamoorthy et al. [12].
The accuracy of the approximate methods with respect to the
rigorous formulations needs to be well understood in order for
these methods to be used properly.
Finally, the use of design information and engineering judge-
ment is an economical way to obtain fragility data. However, the
result may be very sensitive to the subjective judgement, espe-
cially if it is based on the opinions of a few engineers [4].
In the present study, a detailed analytical model has been used
for the reliability analysis of RC structures under seismic actions. In
this case, due to the non-linear behaviour, the response of RC struc-
tures subjected to severe ground-motions must be obtained by
computationally demanding non-linear Finite Element analysis.
Then, in order to reduce the computational effort, an approach

0167-4730/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.06.003
 N. Buratti et al. / Structural Safety 32 (2010) 42–51
based on the extension of the Response Surface (RS) method and
the theory of Design of Experiments has been adopted to evaluate
the seismic fragility of structures. This methodology has found its
first applications for time-invariant problems [13,14]. It has been
extended to dynamic problems by Veneziano et al. [15,16] and
has been developed more recently by Pinto et al. [17–20].
The basic idea [16] of the method is to use statistical techniques
from the theory of Design of Experiments and then statistical infer-
ence [17–19] in order to: (i) minimize the dimension of the ran-
dom space, i.e. the number of random variables explicitly
considered in the reliability problem; (ii) obtain an (approximate)
analytical relationship between the adopted ground-motion inten-
sity measure (the spectral acceleration at failure in the present
study) and the basic random variables. It is worth noting that the
Response Surface is a statistical model and not a physical model.
Hence, it is intended to give the most relevant dependences of
the response parameter (the structural capacity) on the basic ran-
dom variables through simplified relations, whereas the full,
mechanically-based, model is represented by the non-linear finite
element model used to generate the input data for RS calibration.
The so obtained reliability problem can be solved by Monte Car-
lo (MC) simulation method in order to obtain, for the structure
considered, the fragility curve, giving the conditional probability
of structural failure for different values of the ground-motion
intensity. Of course, the application of the MC method is now very
simple because the limit state function is an analytical expression.
The main strength of this procedure is its versatility [20]: it can
be used in conjunction with advanced mechanical models and the
variability in the response due to the uncertainty in the input
ground-motion as well as the variation of the mechanical parame-
ters of the structure (with respect to the nominal values) can be
realistically described in a probabilistic sense. Furthermore the
procedure can explicitly take into account interaction between
variations of structural parameters (such as concrete strength)
and structural response. On the other hand, the main limitation
of the present formulation, when compared with other approaches
(e.g. Ramamoorthy et al. [12]) lies in the impossibility of directly
taking into account information from experimental data which
are typically available at component level.
The main purpose of the present work is to investigate the
potentialities of this approach and in particular its sensitivity to
(i) the adopted simulation plan; (ii) the number of time-histories
adopted to describe the ground-motion and (iii) the degree of the
polynomial model used in the RS.
The procedure is illustrated with reference to the seismic fragil-
ity assessment of a RC frame structure. RS models with random
block effects have been used to approximate the dependence of
the structural capacity from the random parameters considered
in the analysis. Accordingly, some variables are considered explic-
itly in the definition of the RS (concrete strength, steel yielding
stress, live loads), whereas the uncertainties related to the seismic
action and the variability of the mechanical properties over the
structure are considered in an implicit way.
As for the ground-motion, simulated acceleration time-histories
are used, according to the method proposed by Sabetta et al. and
Pugliese et al. [21,22]. Artificial accelerograms are preferred here
over recorded time-histories because as many ground-motions as
required by the probabilistic model for reliability analysis can be
generated, according to a given seismological scenario. In fact,
since the Monte Carlo simulation method has been used to com-
pute the reference values of the fragility, a very large number of
statistically independent numerical simulations (and therefore of
ground-motions) is needed. In Buratti et al. [23], it has been shown
that the ground-motion generation procedure used in the present
work gives acceleration time-histories that: (i) do not introduce
43
bias in the structural response and (ii) have a degree of variability
similar to that of recorded ground-motions.
As for the concrete strength, non destructive testing on existing
old RC frame structures often shows that the strength can be very
variable, not only with respect to the value prescribed by design,
but also among the various parts of the structure, for instance from
one floor to another or even among the columns of the same floor.
Therefore, the variation of the concrete strength has been de-
scribed by a correlated random field.
RS models based on polynomial functions of different degree
and obtained with different simulation plans have been employed
and compared in terms of computational efficiency and accuracy.
The reference values for the structural capacity and the failure
probabilities have been computed by MC simulations, obtained
by fully random generation of ground-motions and mechanical/
loading characteristics of the structure.
Quadratic polynomial models have shown a high sensitivity to
the type of design used and require a higher number of simulations
than linear models in order to give accurate results. On the con-
trary, these latter models have shown less sensitivity to the se-
lected simulation plan.
2. Seismic fragility
In a seismic reliability framework, the seismic fragility curve is
defined as the probability of failure of a structure conditional to the
ground-motion intensity.
The structural failure is attained when the limit state function,
defined as the difference between structural capacity and demand,
is less than or equal to zero:
g ¼ min½Cðx; tÞ  Dðx; tÞ 6 0 ð1Þ
t
where both capacity, C, and demand, D, depend on the set x of ran-
dom variables adopted to describe the variability of some properties
of the structure (e.g., related to the strength of structural elements),
and on the time t.
In the definition of the limit state function in Eq. (1), the explicit
dependence on time is eliminated, because the minimum value
over the entire ground-motion duration is taken [15,16]. If the
structural behaviour is non-linear, Monte Carlo (MC) simulation
methods are typically used to solve Eq. (1) [24]. As well known,
these methods require a great computational effort, especially
when values of the fragility curve corresponding to low probability
levels must be evaluated. Computationally less demanding proce-
dures such as FORM and SORM may have some limitations when
Eq. (1) is not analytical or when a suitable probabilistic model is
not available for all the random variables involved in the problem
(e.g. to realistically describe the seismic action) [24].
In the present study, different RS models, together with differ-
ent criteria for the design of simulation plans are used to approxi-
mate the limit state function, in order to reduce the number of
simulations required to perform the fragility analysis.
First of all, an intensity measure [25,26] must be chosen to ex-
press the structural capacity C and demand D adopted in the limit
state function. This intensity measure shall be the same used to ex-
press the seismic hazard for the site where the structure is located.
Some different proposals can be found in the literature [25,26]. In
the present study, according to Veneziano et al. [16], Casciati et al.
[15] and Shome et al. [25], both structural capacity and demand are
written as a function of the spectral acceleration, corresponding to
the first natural frequency of the structure. Eq. (1) is then rewritten
as:
g ¼ Sa;C ðxÞ  Sa;D ð2Þ
44 N. Buratti et al. / Structural Safety 32 (2010) 42–51
where Sa,C represents the spectral acceleration causing the struc-
tural failure and Sa,D the spectral acceleration the structure is sub-
jected to. Following this approach, Sa,D is independent from the
structural capacity, because the fragility is conditioned on this
parameter. The first step of the reliability analysis is to determine
Sa,C as a function of the random variables x modelling the variability
of the mechanical properties and the loads for the structure. Then,
the seismic fragility curve is calculated by evaluating the structural
failure probability for different values of Sa,D, i.e., Pf = P(g < 0|Sa,D).
The evaluation of the dependence of structural capacity Sa,C on
the random variables x involved in the problem is the most compu-
tationally expensive step due to the non-linear structural behav-
iour and the high number of random variables. In the present
study, the RS method has been used to approximate the unknown
dependence of Sa,C on x.
3. Response Surface method
The Response Surface method is based on the definition of a sta-
tistical model expressing a response parameter as a function of a
set of variables, called factors in the statistical language. The RS is
typically based on a polynomial function, and has been used in
many research fields [17–19].
In the present work, according to Veneziano et al. [16], the re-
sponse parameter approximated by RS method is the structural
capacity (Sa,C) in terms of spectral acceleration causing the struc-
tural failure. The factors are the random variables governing the
structural response, i.e. material parameters and loads (see Section
4).
3.1. Standard Response Surface
In the RS method, the expected value E(Y) of a response param-
eter Y is approximated through a polynomial function of a set of
variables x, usually up to the second degree [18,19]:
EðYÞ ¼ fðxÞT b
where f(x) is a p  1 vector of monomials of x (e.g.
f(x)T = [1,x1,. . .,xk,x1  x1,x1  x2,. . .,xk  xk]) and b is a vector collecting
p unknown regression parameters.
The deviation of the ith observation Yi (the result of a numerical
simulation in the present study) from the expected value E(Yi) can
be written as:
ei ¼ Y i  EðY i Þ ¼ Y i  fðxi ÞT b; ði ¼ 1; . . . ; NÞ
Therefore, considering N observations, the model (as far as the
regression parameters are concerned) in Eq. (4) can be expressed
in matrix notation, as [18]:
Y ¼ Xb þ e
where YT = [Y1, . . . , YN], X is an N  p matrix whose ith row is the
vector of monomials f(x)T calculated for the values assumed by
the variables x at the ith trial and e = (e1, e2, . . . , eN)T is the vector
collecting the errors of Yi with respect to E(Yi). Usually, the hypoth-
esis that the errors are randomly distributed with no correlation
and constant variance is introduced [18,19], i.e.,varðeÞ ¼ r2e IN where
IN is a N  N identity matrix. In order to perform the tests of signif-
icance, and estimate the confidence intervals, the additional
assumption that the errors are normally distributed must be
satisfied. The regression parameters b and the variance r2e in Eq.
(5) can be estimated using least squares or maximum likelihood
methods. In the present study, the validity of the aforementioned
assumptions has been checked when performing the regression
analysis for the estimation of the regression parameters (see Section
4.5).
3.2. Response Surface with random block effects
The standard formulation of RS cannot be used for applications
in earthquake engineering because not all the random variables on
which the structural behaviour depends can be expressed in expli-
cit form as reported in Eq. (3). In fact, the evaluation of the seismic
fragility requires to take the variability of the seismic action and
mechanical parameters over the structure into account. As for
the first aspect, the earthquake ground-motion is a non-stationary
process, with amplitude and frequency content variable in time.
Moreover, the material properties can be very inhomogeneous
among different structural members, due to building construction
phases or degradation. Hence, the mathematical description of
these quantities would require many random variables. The RS
method is a good alternative to Monte Carlo methods (in terms
of reduced computational effort) only if the number of variables
is low (6–8 variables), because the number of simulations required
to calibrate the RS (called the model) strongly increases with the
number of variables [27,28]. In order to reduce the number of ran-
dom variables in the RS, they are divided in two groups: explicit xE
and implicit xI variables [13,15,16]. The first ones are accounted for
explicitly as random variables in the RS, while the latter are consid-
ered implicitly. In the following description of the model the nota-
tion used by Khuri and Cornell [18] and Searle et al. [19] has been
employed.
The effects of implicit variables are taken into account by intro-
ducing a set of random factors, dj (j = 1,. . .,r). The RS in Eq. (5) is then
modified as follows:
X
r
Y ¼ fðxE ÞT b þ dj þ e ð6Þ
j
The statistical model in Eq. (6) is called mixed model and the
random factors di describe the effects of the implicit variables (xI)
on the response value. The effects of the implicit variables are as-
sumed in additive form and do not interact with the explicit vari-
ð3Þ ables [20]. The hypothesis that di are independent random
variables normally distributed with zero mean and variance r2di
has been adopted here according to Franchin et al. [20]. This kind
of model is employed in problems where the experiments cannot
be conducted in homogeneous conditions [19], i.e., the results
are affected by random values of some variables non explicitly in-
cluded in the model (the implicit). For the ith observation, the ef-
fect of the implicit variables on the response Yi is supposed to be
ð4Þ represented by an unknown value dij of the factor dj. A group of
homogenous observations i.e. affected by the same unknown value
of a random factor dj, is called block.
In the present paper, the variability of the seismic action and of
the material properties among different members of the structure
are considered as implicit variables and included in the statistical
ð5Þ
model via random factors. Hence, the blocks corresponding to dif-
ferent realizations of the implicit variables (xI) are used to describe
these aspects.
The N observations are divided into bj blocks, corresponding to
different values of the random factor dj and containing nj elements
each (i.e., the random factor dj may assume bj different values, each
one being repeated nj times). Then, the statistical model in Eq. (6)
in a matrix form as:
Y ¼ Xb þ Zd þ e ð7Þ
where
T
d ¼ ½ dT1 . . . dTr  ð8Þ
is the vector of random effects, r being the number of random fac-
tors. Each dj is a vector, of length bj, containing the unknown values
assumed by the random factor dj in the various blocks. Moreover,
 N. Buratti et al. / Structural Safety 32 (2010) 42–51 45

Pr
the matrix Z is a N  j¼1 bj Boolean matrix, associating each obser- 3.3. Design of the simulation plans
vation result to its corresponding block. By partitioning Z as done
for the vector d in Eq. (8), i.e.: A set of numerical simulations is needed to obtain the data to
calibrate the RS (see Section 4.4). In the present study, the simula-
Z ¼ ½ Z1 . . . Zr  ð9Þ
tions are non-linear incremental dynamic analyses of structures
where each Zj is a N  bj Boolean matrix, Eq. (7) is rewritten as: subject to seismic excitation.
The theory of Design of Experiments (DOE) [17,18] gives the cri-
X
r
Y ¼ Xb þ Zi di þ e ð10Þ teria to define the number of simulations and the values (called
i¼1 levels) of the explicit variables to be used to obtain the data for
the RS calibration. For each simulation, the random variable vector
The error vector e is defined as:
must be given a set of values. DOE requires preliminarily the selec-
e ¼ Y  EðYjdÞ ð11Þ tion of the region of interest for the explicit variables influencing
the response. Typically, this region is cuboidal or spherical. Restric-
where E(Y|d) is the conditional mean of Y, with d representing the
tion of the region of interest is necessary in order to use low degree
actual random effects as they occur in the data, i.e.,
polynomials for the local approximation of the unknown RS.
EðYjdÞ ¼ Xb þ Zd ð12Þ The use of a non-dimensional form for the variables (called
coded variables, xi) facilitates the construction of the simulation
Assuming a variance–covariance structure for the error terms
plan. A convenient formula is [17]:
according to Franchin et al. [20]:
2X i  ðX iL þ X iH Þ
varðeÞ ¼ r2e IN ; varðdi Þ ¼ r2di Ibi 8i; xi ¼ ð19Þ
X iH  X iL
covðdi ; dj Þ ¼ 0 8i – j; covðe; dÞ ¼ 0 ð13Þ
where XiL and XiH are two selected levels of ith variable. For exam-
the covariance matrix of the results can be expressed as: ple, if a random variable is given by a normal distribution, these lev-
els can be selected as the mean value ± one standard deviation. This
X
r
kind of coding originates from first-order designs, i.e., designs
CYY ¼ r2di Zi ZTi þ r2e In ð14Þ
i¼1
appropriate to be used to fit polynomial models of order one. An
example of first-order design is the 2k factorial design, where each
If, as usual, the variances r2e and r2di are unknown, they must be factor, or input variable, is set equal to two different levels, xi = 1
estimated together with the regression parameters. The Maximum and +1 (according to Eq. (19)). By considering all the possible com-
likelihood method can be used [19]. The so obtained estimates are binations of the two levels of k variables, 2k sets of values of the
the values maximizing the likelihood function L: variables are defined and 2k simulations must be performed.
( There are several advantages of using coded variables rather
2 2 2
r2e > 0 than the original input variables also when polynomial models of
max Lðb; re ; r d1 ; . . . ; r dr Þ subject to
r2di P 0; i ¼ 1; . . . ; r order higher than one must be calibrated: computational ease
and interpretability of the coefficient estimates are the most
ð15Þ
important properties. Both advantages come from the circum-
Assuming normality for e and d1,. . .,dr, the function L in Eq. (15) has stance that the XTX matrix involved in the estimation procedure
the form of a multivariate normal distribution: is simpler if referred to coded variables than to original variables.
Box and Draper [17] list 14 properties a design should satisfy in
exp½ 12 ðY  XbÞT C1
YY ðY  XbÞ
order to be used to fit a polynomial RS model. Among these, the
L¼ 1 1
ð16Þ most important for the application presented in this paper are:
ð2pÞ2N jCYY j2
(i) the design should generate a satisfactory distribution of infor-
Maximizing the likelihood function L (or log L) is, in general, a dif- mation throughout the region of interest; (ii) the design should al-
ficult numerical problem. Setting to zero the first derivatives of log low simulations to be performed in blocks (in order to consider the
L gives a non-linear system of equations. Moreover, the likelihood effects of implicit variables); (iii) the design should require a min-
function contains the inverse of an N  N matrix, which is compu- imum number of simulations.
tationally expensive especially if the number of observations is In addition, there are two other important properties: orthogo-
large. In addition, the maximization problem is a constrained nality and rotatability of the design. In an orthogonal design, the
problem (see Eq. (15)). In the present study, the EM (Expecta- terms of the model are uncorrelated one another. A first-order de-
tion–Maximization) algorithm has been used, alternating calcula- sign is orthogonal if and only if XTX is diagonal. If a design is rotat-
able, the variance of Y^ is a function only of the distance from the
tion of the conditional expected values and maximization of
simplified likelihoods [19]. The assumptions used to obtain Eqs. centre of the design (x1 = x2 = . . . = xk = 0).
(13,16) have been made according to Franchin et al. [20], and have The Central Composite Design (CCD), introduced by Box and
been checked, using the diagnostic plots and the tests described by Wilson [30], possesses the properties listed above. The CCD is a
Pinheiro and Bates [29], when performing the regressions (see Sec- second-order design, i.e., it is suitable to fit polynomial models
^ the vector containing the estimates of the regres-
tion 4.5).Being b up to order two. It consists of:
sion parameters of the RS, it can be demonstrated that the
estimate of the variance–covariance matrix of b ^ can be expressed – A complete 2k factorial design, where factor levels are xi = 1, +1
as [18,19]: (called factorial portion of design).
– A number n0 of centre points (xi = 0).
varðbÞ ^ 1 XÞ1
^ ¼ ðXT C ð17Þ – Two axial points on the axis of each design variable at a distance
YY
equal to a from the design centre, i.e., xi = a, +a (called axial
Moreover, from Eq. (6), the prediction of the mean value of the re- portion of the design).
sponse and its variance can be written as:
The number of centre point repetitions n0 and the value a are cho-
^
YðxÞ ¼ fðxÞT b; ^ ¼ fðxÞT ðXT C
^ varðYÞ ^ 1 XÞ1 fðxÞ
YY
ð18Þ sen appropriately in order to satisfy rotatability and orthogonality
46 N. Buratti et al. / Structural Safety 32 (2010) 42–51

properties.The CCD can also be subdivided in orthogonal blocks, Table 1

i.e., it can satisfy the orthogonality property even when the numer- The case study: cross-sections of the RC frame.

ical simulations are partitioned in blocks. Nevertheless, it is not Section Width cm Height cm As As’ Stirrups
possible to obtain, for every number of explicit variables k, a CCD A–A 30 30 2/20 2/20 /10@20
which is also rotatable. Further details can be found in Box and B–B 30 30 3/20 3/20 /10@20
Draper [17]. C–C 40 40 2/18 2/18 /10@20
D–D 35 35 2/18 2/18 /10@20
E–E 30 30 2/18 2/18 /10@20
4. Application: structural capacity of a RC frame F–F 30 60 2/18 2/18 /10@20
G–G 30 60 4/18 2/18 /10@20
In the present study, the Response Surface method with random H–H 30 60 2/18 + 1/20 2/18 + 4/20 /10@20
I–I 30 60 2/18 + 2/20 2/18 /10@20
block effects is used to approximate the structural capacity of an
L–L 30 50 2/18 3/18 /10@20
existing RC frame structure. The spectral acceleration causing the M–M 30 50 4/18 2/18 /10@20
failure of the structure is the parameter adopted to represent the N–N 30 50 2/18 + 3/20 2/18 + 4/20 /10@20
structural capacity. In the following sections, the numerical model O–O 30 50 5/18 2/18 /10@20
adopted to perform the non-linear time-history analyses, the crite- P–P 30 50 2/18 + 3/20 2/18 /10@20

ria adopted to define the explicit and the implicit variables and the
method adopted to generate the input ground-motions will be
described. 4.2. Search of the structural capacity

4.1. The case study: RC frame structure
The geometry of the RC frame structure, cross-sections and steel
reinforcements of beams and columns are reported in Fig. 1 and
Table 1. In addition to beam and column self-weights, the dead
load qD = 33 kN/m is prescribed for all beams. The live load qL act-
ing on the first floor beams is 1.5 times greater than on the two
upper floors and is defined according to a lognormal distribution.
All the above parameters have been defined on the basis of engi-
neering judgement with reference to the construction practice in
Italy, for this kind of building, during the 90s.
Non-linear dynamic analyses have been performed using the Fi-
nite Element software OpenSees [31]. Beams and columns have
been modelled as finite elements with distributed inelasticity,
based on the flexibility formulation. The cross-sections have been
discretized into fibres and 5 and 7 control sections [31] have been
used for beams and columns, respectively. Non-linear constitutive
laws have been defined for concrete and steel. Each concrete sec-
tion has been subdivided in unconfined and confined zones: Sae-
nz’s [32] and Mander’s [33] models have been used for concrete
constitutive laws, respectively. For the mechanical behaviour of
the reinforcing steel, a bilinear model has been used.
qL
L M N qD N P L
30×50 30×50
L M N N P L
30×30 30×30 30×30
300
The seismic capacity of the structure is defined as the value of
the spectral acceleration Sa,C causing the failure of the structure.
Therefore, a limit state condition for the structure must be defined.
Different measures can be adopted to define the capacity of the
structure to be compared with the seismic demand, e.g. maximum
shear, interstorey drift, chord rotation, etc. In this study only an
ultimate limit state condition is defined: structural failure is at-
tained when, in a section of the RC frame, the maximum strain in
the confined concrete reaches a prescribed ultimate value, ecu.
The ultimate strain capacity ecu is evaluated by the Mander’s model
[33] for confined concrete, in order to take into account the bene-
ficial effect of closely spaced steel stirrups in the critical regions of
the frame (end regions of columns and beams), where plastic
deformations can be very high.
The structural capacity of the structure, Sa,C, is calculated by
scaling the considered ground-motion up to the attainment of
the structural failure. In each simulation, in order to obtain the
scaling factor causing the structural failure, an incremental dy-
namic analysis [34] is performed: according to this method, the
structure is subjected to a ground-motion record, linearly scaled
by increasing the level of intensity until the limit state condition
is exceeded. Then, the iterative Brent’s method [35] is used to ob-
tain, up to the desired accuracy, the scaling factor causing the
structural collapse and, therefore, Sa,C which is given by the prod-
uct of the scaling factor and the spectral acceleration at the natural
frequency of the structure of the unscaled accelerogram. The
Brent’s method combines root bracketing, bisection and inverse
quadratic interpolation. This algorithm could be extended [34] in
order to take into account more than one performance level.
The natural frequency of the structure, used to evaluate the
spectral acceleration, is calculated using the mean values of the

B B qL E E qL B B
random variables involved in the problem [20,27] and assuming
L M qD N N O qD L the damping ratio equal to 0.05.
As well known, the spectral acceleration is not a completely effi-
30×50 30×50 cient intensity measure of the ground-motion, i.e. it is not fully cor-
L M N N O L
30×30 35×35 30×30 related with the structural response [26]. Hence, the capacity Sa,C
300

A A qL D D qL A A
depends on the input ground-motion used to perform the simula-
F G qD H H I qD F
tions. Therefore, different accelerograms, representative of the dom-
inant seismic hazard scenario at the considered site, must be used. In
30×60
the present work, artificial acceleration time-histories have been
30×60
F G H H I F generated using the procedure described in detail in Section 4.3.2.
300

A A C C A A
4.3. Selection of the random variables
30×30 40×40 30×30
500 550
The criteria adopted to define the random variables involved in
the analyses, ground-motion time-histories and to calibrate the RS
Fig. 1. RC frame structure considered in the numerical analyses. are described here.
 N. Buratti et al. / Structural Safety 32 (2010) 42–51
4.3.1. Explicit random variables
Four explicit random variables, related with the mechanical
properties of the RC structure and applied loads, are considered
in the analysis. Their distributions are summarized in Table 2.
The live load acting on the structure is defined by the random var-
iable qL. Steel yielding stress and mean concrete compressive
strength are denoted by fy and fcm, respectively. Moreover, De rep-
resents the uncertainty in the definition of the ultimate confined
concrete strain. In other words, the ultimate strain is defined as
ecuDe, where ecu is a function of the concrete compressive strength
fc (according to the Mander’s model) and De represents the uncer-
tainty on that value. This criterion is used in order to maintain the
correlation between concrete compressive strength fc and ultimate
concrete strain ecu.
4.3.2. Implicit random variables
The concrete compressive strength is considered non uniform
among different structural members. The actual value fc of the
strength of a beam/column is given as fc = fcmlc, i.e., the product
between the mean value fcm, valid for the entire structure and ta-
ken as an explicit random variable, and a local fluctuation lc. Both
random variables have lognormal distributions. The local strength
fluctuation lc is modeled using a random field with discrete sup-
port (one different value for each beam or column) with partial
(prescribed) correlation among the columns of the same floor
and no correlation among those of different floors. This model
should provide a good representation, in a statistical sense, of the
concrete strength distribution in existing RC structures, due to
the sequence of building stages. The mean value of the random
variable lc is 1. Its Coefficient of Variation (COV) is calculated
assuming COV = 0.3 for fc and COV = 0.2 for fcm [32]. The set of ran-
dom variables describing the local fluctuation lc among the frame
elements are considered as implicit variables, and their effects on
the structural capacity are considered through the random factor
dlc . A different sample from the random field (i.e. a different
strength distribution over the structure) is adopted in each block
related to dlc .
A second random factor dsis is used to represent the uncertainty
of the seismic action, i.e. a different time-history is adopted in each
block related to dsis. In order to perform a consistent sensitivity
analysis of results, the selected accelerograms must constitute a
homogeneous population, fully representative of the possible var-
iability of the ground-motion occurring in a given site. Two kinds
of accelerograms are typically used in for non-linear dynamic anal-
yses: artificial or recorded accelerograms [23,36]. In the first case,
an as wide as required population can be generated, but artificial
accelerograms are often quite different from natural accelerograms
[36]. On the opposite side, the selection of recorded accelerograms
may not give a homogeneous population, because of the incom-
pleteness of ground-motion databases.
In the present work, the method proposed by Sabetta and
Pugliese [22] has been adopted. It allows to generate artificial
ground-motions starting from magnitude, epicentral distance,
and soil type of the site considered. This model adopts four
strong-motion indicators to generate the artificial time-histories.
These indicators are the ground-motion duration, the Arias
Table 2
Probability distributions adopted for the explicit random variables.
Variable Distribution Mean value
qL LN 4.31 kN/m
fy LN 515.0 N/mm2
fcm LN 33.0 N/mm2
De LN 1.0
47
intensity, the central frequency (Fc) and the frequency bandwidth
(Fb) of the signal. Their values are estimated through empirical pre-
dictive equations (attenuation relationships). The simulation of a
non-stationary strong ground-motion is achieved through an
empirical model, where time dependence and frequency content
of the signal are represented through the signal spectrogram. The
spectrogram PS(t,f) is a frequency–time decomposition of the ex-
pected energy of a process, i.e., the natural extension of the power
spectrum to the non-stationary case. Sabetta and Pugliese assumed
that the spectrogram can be factorized by a series of power spec-
tral densities, calculated at different times, and fitted with a log-
normal function. The latter is defined by physical parameters
such as the instantaneous average power Pa(t), the central fre-
quency Fc(t), and the frequency bandwidth Fb(t). With the above
defined parameters, a lognormal function approximating PS(t,f)
can be derived in the form:
Pa ðtÞ ½ln f ln2bðtÞ2
PSapprox ðt; f Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi e 2d ð20Þ
f 2p d
where b and d are derived from Fc(t) and Fb(t). Moreover, Fc(t) and
Fb(t) are approximated by functions derived from regression analy-
ses, and depend on magnitude and soil type. Pa(t) describes the
amplitude variation of the ground-motion in time. Its integral in
the time domain corresponds to the Arias intensity. To approximate
this function, Sabetta and Pugliese adopted a lognormal function
with parameters that can be expressed as a function of Arias inten-
sity and strong motion duration. The predictions of these parame-
ters are obtained from attenuation relationships, depending on
magnitude, epicentral distance and soil type. These attenuation
relationships have been calibrated by Sabetta and Pugliese [22]
using data from far-field ground-motions recorded in Italy, and do
not take the fault rupture type into account. Artificial accelerograms
are then generated by Fourier series expansion with time depen-
dent amplitudes, derived from Eq. (20), and random phases. Recent
studies performed by the present authors [23] have shown that arti-
ficial time-histories generated by this method are characterized by
a degree of variability comparable with that of recorded ground-
motions, and that they do not introduce bias in the structural re-
sponse. The adopted ground-motions have been generated assum-
ing a rock soil.
4.4. RS models and Design of Experiments
With reference to the model reported in Eq. (7), a simulation
plan must be selected to obtain the data for the estimation of the
RS parameters giving a good prediction of the true response in
the region of interest [17]. In the present work, different RS models
and simulation plans have been adopted, with the objective of
obtaining a good compromise between reliability of results and
computational saving. Previous works by the present authors
[37] suggested that RS models simpler than quadratic may be, in
some cases, sufficiently accurate in calculating fragility curves,
and require a computational cost significantly smaller, because a
reduced number of numerical simulations is needed to calibrate
the model.
Table 3
Number of repetitions of the simulation designs adopted for the different RS models.
Design Response Surface models
COV Qfix Q L
0.8 RND 1 – –
0.1 CCD – 2-9 2–9
0.2 F1 – – 2–9
0.2 F2 – – 2–9
48 N. Buratti et al. / Structural Safety 32 (2010) 42–51

The models and the simulation designs investigated in the pres- A B A−A B−B
0.5
ent study are summarized in Table 3. The following polynomial
models have been adopted for the RS:
0

log(Sa,C) [g]
– Qfix: Quadratic model for the mean response and no random
block effects (Eq. (5)).
−0.5
– Q: Quadratic model for the mean response and two random
block effects (Eq. (7)).
– L: Linear model for the mean response and two random block −1
effects (Eq. (7)).
A B fcm=33.0 fcm=40.2
−1.5
Moreover, the following simulation plans have been adopted: 20 30 40 50
fcm [N/mm2]
– RND: fully random design. It is used to build a reference model.
Fig. 3. Quadratic models: sections (with qL, fy, De equal to their mean values) of the
In each simulation, a new random sample of implicit and explicit
mean Response Surfaces predicted by Qfix-RND ( ) and Q-CCD-2 (––) models.
variables is generated. 1100 random samples have been used. : capacity values from reduced-MC simulation and  from the CCD used for
– CCD: central composite design with factorial points at a ± 1r, or RS calibration.
alternatively, at a = ±2r for the explicit random variables xE, 3
blocks for dsis (2 from factorial portion, 1 from axial portion)
A B A−A B−B
and 1 block for dlc . 2 centre point replicates are added to each 0.5
dsis block. The total number of simulations is N = 30.
– F1: 2k factorial design with axial points at ±1r for xE, 2 blocks for
dsis and 2 blocks for dlc . The total number of simulations is 0

N = 16. log(Sa,C) [g]

– F2: 2k factorial design with axial points at ±2r for xE, 2 blocks for −0.5
dsis and 2 blocks for dlc . The total number of simulations is
N = 16.
−1

In the last three designs, the simulations have been repeated a

A B f =33.0 f =40.2
cm cm
number of times in order to increase the total number of blocks, −1.5
20 30 40 50
i.e. to increase the number of different time-histories and random
fcm [N/mm2]
strength distributions used to calibrate the model.
In the following, the models will be referenced with the nota- Fig. 4. Linear models: sections (with qL, fy, De equal to their mean values) of the
tion: Model-Design-Repetitions. For instance Q-CCD-6 is a qua- mean Response Surfaces predicted by Qfix-RND ( ) and L-F1-9 (––) models. :
dratic polynomial model, calibrated using 6 repetitions of the capacity values from reduced-MC simulation and  from the CCD used for RS
calibration.
basic CCD described before. The total number of blocks is 18 for dsis
and 6 for dlc and the total number of simulations is N = 180. Since
in each block a different random sample of the implicit variables is 0.9999 (a) 1
(b)
generated, different results are obtained when different design 0.999
repetitions are performed, even if the values of explicit random 0.99
0.5
variables are the same. Different calibrations of the same model 0.9
Probability

and design starting from different ground-motions and concrete 0.75

0.5 0
ε

strength distributions will be distinguished by appending a letter 0.25

to the already described notation, e.g., Q-CCD-6a, Q-CCD-6b. 0.1
The numerical values reported in Table 3 indicate the number of −0.5
0.01
repetitions of the basic designs used to calibrate the different 0.001
0.0001
models. −1
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −1 −0.5 0
ε log(Sa,C)

Fig. 5. Qfix-RND model: (a) normal probability plot to compare the distribution of
A B A−A B−B the residuals with the normal distribution; (b) the residuals versus the predicted
0.5
value of the response.

0
log(Sa,C) [g]

4.5. Predictions by different models

−0.5
Once the values of the random variables have been selected and
the numerical simulations have been performed, the RS models are
−1 calibrated following the procedure described in Section 3.2. It is
convenient to use the RS to approximate ln(Sa,C) instead of Sa,C, so
f =33.0 f =40.2
−1.5
A B cm cm avoiding the predictions of negative values of the structural capac-
20 30 40 50 ity which would be meaningless.
fcm [N/mm2] First of all, the RSs calibrated using different models are com-
pared. Figs. 3–5 show some sample sections of the mean Response
Fig. 2. Quadratic models: sections (with qL, fy, De equal to their mean values) of the
mean Response Surfaces predicted by Qfix-RND ( ) and Q-CCD-9 (––) models.
Surface obtained by different RS models, fixing the explicit vari-
: capacity values from reduced-MC simulation and  from the CCD used for ables De, fy and qL to their mean values, and considering only the
RS calibration. variability of the response parameter ln(Sa,C) with respect to fcm.
 N. Buratti et al. / Structural Safety 32 (2010) 42–51 49

Some reference capacity values to be used for comparison have Table 4

 E (mean values of all
Mean value of the RSs giving the structural capacity Sa,C, for x ¼ x
been obtained via Monte Carlo simulation by considering the con-
explicit random variables) and mean squared error of different models.
crete strength only as explicit variable and setting the other vari-
ables to their mean values. To obtain these reference values, one Model E ÞÞ
logðSa;C ðx mse
time-history, one strength distribution (implicit variables) and log[g] log[g]

one mean concrete strength value fcm (explicit variable) are ran- Qfix-RND 0.4741 0.2925
domly sampled for each numerical simulation. This set of results Q-CCD-9a 0.3678 0.2319
Q-CCD-9b 0.5228 0.2770
will be called reduced Monte Carlo and used as the reference for
Q-CCD-2a 1.0249 0.1285
comparison with polynomial RS models: crosses indicate these Q-CCD-2b 0.1336 0.1707
numerical results. L-F1-9a 0.6314 0.1809
L-F1-9b 0.5354 0.1931
4.5.1. Quadratic models L-CCD-9a 0.3936 0.2169
L-CCD-9b 0.5664 0.2784
In Fig. 2, the thick line indicates the mean surface given by Qfix-
RND (the reference model); moreover dash-dot lines indicate
intervals at 68.2% and 95.4% of the confidence level. The thin lines
represent the mean Response Surfaces given by different Q-CCD-9 gðxE ; b; e; dsis ; dlc jSa;D Þ ¼ lnðSa;C Þ  lnðSa;D Þ
models and the dots some simulation results obtained from differ- ¼ fðxE ÞT b þ dsis þ dlc þ e  lnðSa;D Þ ð21Þ
ent repetitions of CCD and used to calibrate the RS. As described in
Section 3.2, the parameters of the RSs have been obtained from the Hence, g in Eq. (21) is a function of the explicit random variables
regression together with the variances of e, dsis and dlc (see Eq. xE, distributed according to the values reported in Table 2, and of e,
(10)). On the right side of the figure, the structural capacity as pre- dsis, dlc , representing the error in the RS and the effect of implicit
dicted by different models for the mean values of the explicit vari- variables, normally distributed (see Section 3.2). In order to evalu-
ables (in the following referenced as x E ), is represented as a normal ate the conditional probability of the structural failure (Pf) for dif-
variable, with mean value equal to that predicted by the RS and ferent levels of structural demand (i.e., the seismic fragility curve),
variance equal to Var[e] for the Qfix-RND model (no random block the Monte Carlo simulation method can be applied to Eq. (21) with
effects) and Var[e + dsis + dlc ] for the models with random effects. In a minimum computational effort.
Section 6, it will be shown that in order to predict the structural In order to compare the fragility curves obtained by different
fragility with accuracy, a model giving good estimates of both RSs, some reference values of Pf have been evaluated using a full
the mean value and the variance of the RS is required. According Monte Carlo approach: for a given value of Sa,D, the corresponding
to Fig. 2, all Q-CCD-9 models give good prediction of the structural Pf is calculated by performing a sequence of non-linear dynamic
capacity at x E , corresponding to the centre of CCDs, but the accu- analyses (simulations), with independent random samples of both
racy decreases if RS are compared at a certain distance from this explicit and implicit variables. These results are indicated with cir-
point, for instance for values of the explicit variables corresponding cles in the fragility graphs reported in Figs. 6–8 and are used as the
to high and low fractiles. reference solution for the comparison between fragility curves ob-
The same sections of the RS for different Q-CCD-2 models are tained by different RS models. The 68% confidence intervals for the
depicted in Fig. 3 and compared with the reduced-MC model. It is values of the fragilities estimated by MC simulations have been de-
clear that, due to the low number of repetitions of the base designs picted with a thick black vertical interval.
(only 2, i.e. only 4 different time-histories and 2 different concrete
strength distribution used to obtain the data for the RS calibration), 4.6.1. Quadratic models
the model gives a completely wrong prediction of both mean Re- Fig. 6 shows the fragility curve obtained using the Qfix-RND
sponse Surface and variance even at the centre of the design x E . model (thick line) and an envelope of the fragilities obtained using
All the assumptions introduced on the statistical models (see different Q-CCD-9 models (thin lines). The Qfix-RND model gives re-
Sections 3.1 and 3.2) have been checked after the regression anal- sults in good agreement with the reference MC values (circles),
yses performed to evaluate the RS parameters. For instance in Fig. 5 whereas this is not the case of quadratic Q-CCD-9 models as far
the assumption of normality (a) and of constant variance (b) for the as low probability levels are concerned (e.g. Pf = 102–103). In
residuals in Eq. (4) is checked for the Qfix-RND model. structural reliability problems, the most important portion of fra-
gility curves is that related with low probability levels, i.e. low
4.5.2. Linear models Sa,D values. In fact, when the seismic risk has to be evaluated, the
Fig. 4 shows the analogous results obtained by different L-F1-9 fragility curves must be combined with the seismic hazard curve
models (i.e., linear models with 2-level factorial designs and 9 rep-
etitions, total number of simulations N = 144). Different L-F1 mod- 0
10
els give practically the same result, because the number of blocks is
sufficiently high to describe well the variability of the implicit vari-
ables. Nevertheless, a (systematic) error is present for both mean 10
surface and variance. This result suggests that a higher degree
polynomial model must be used to approximate the dependence
f

10
P

Sa,D for Pf = 10-3

of the structural capacity on the explicit variables.
 E and of the total MC: 0.188
The values of the mean Response Surface at x 10 Qfix-RND: 0.167
mean squared error (MSE) as predicted by some of the different Q-CCD-9: 0.108-0.150
models considered are summarized in Table 4.
10
0.1 0.5 1 2
S [g]
4.6. Fragility analysis a,D

Fig. 6. Fragility curve obtained by Qfix-RND model ( ) and the envelope of the
Using the RS models to express the structural capacity, the fragility curves obtained using Q-CCD-9 models (––). ddd: reference values
approximated limit state function (Eq. (2)) for the structure can obtained by full MC simulation. In the legend: values of the demand (Sa,D)
be expressed in analytical form as: corresponding to Pf = 103, as predicted by different models.
50 N. Buratti et al. / Structural Safety 32 (2010) 42–51

10
0
case study RC frame is considered in the present work; therefore
the fragility curves presented here are case specific and are not
10
transportable to other buildings.
The variability of the material properties and live loads have
been taken into account explicitly in the adopted RS model,
f

10
P

Sa,D for Pf = 10-3 whereas the variability of ground-motions and concrete strength
MC: 0.188 among individual members (beams/columns) of the structure have
10 Q-CCD-2: 0.072 - 0.160 been taken into account implicitly via random factors. In order to
obtain a statistically homogeneous sample, artificial ground-mo-
10 tions, generated by the method proposed by Sabetta and Pugliese
0.1 0.5 1 2
Sa,D [g] [22], have been adopted.
The modelling uncertainty [11] was not taken into account be-
Fig. 7. Envelope of the fragility curves obtained by Q-CCD-2 (––) models. ddd: cause the main objective of this study was to assess the precision
reference values obtained by full MC simulation. In the legend: values of the and the efficiency of the RS method in comparison with Monte Car-
demand (Sa,D) corresponding to Pf = 103, as predicted by different models.
lo simulation. Nhis additional variability might be taken into
accounting by increasing the total standard deviation in the model
0 given in Eq. (21). This would not significantly change the computa-
10
tion time, because this latter is mainly related with the non-linear
analyses needed to obtain the data required to fit RS modes.
10
Different combinations of RS models and simulation plans have
been adopted in order to find a good compromise between the
f

10 accuracy of the results and the computational effort. As far as the

P

Sa,D for Pf = 10-3

MC: 0.188
10 L-CCD-9: 0.130-0.173
L-F1-9: 0.150-0.173
10
0.1 0.5 1 2
Sa,D [g]
Fig. 8. Envelopes of the fragility curves obtained by L-CCD-9 (––) and L-F1-9 (– –)
models. ddd: reference values obtained by full MC simulation. In the legend:
values of demand (Sa,D) corresponding to Pf = 103, as predicted by different models.
of the considered site, with the latter acting as a filter amplifying
the fragility curve values at low Sa,D levels [2].
The error of the different Q-CCD-9 models in the prediction of
the value of Sa,D corresponding to Pf = 103 is between 5% and
30%. This circumstance can be expected because the tails of the fra-
gility curve are related with the tails of the probability density
functions of the explicit random variables collected in xE and, as
Fig. 2 clearly shows, the error of Q-CCD-9 models on the prediction
of the mean surface increases with the distance from the mean va-
lue of the explicit random variables.
The envelope of the fragility curves obtained using different Q-
CCD-2 models is reported in Fig. 7. In this case, i.e. adopting few
(only 2) replications of CCD, the fragility curves are very different
and usually not in agreement with reference results. Fig. 3 and Ta-
ble 4 clearly show that the error depends on the low accuracy in
the prediction of both the mean value and the variance of the
structural capacity.
RS models are concerned, quadratic and linear RS have been
adopted. As for the design of the simulation plans, CCD and 2k fac-
torial designs have been investigated. The results obtained through
these models have been compared with those given by full MC
simulations.
It is shown that quadratic polynomial models are very sensitive
to the design considered. Moreover, from the present study, a min-
imum number of 9 different ground-motion time-histories is sug-
gested in order to include in the model the ground-motion
variability with sufficient accuracy. Reduced designs can produce
completely wrong results. Particular care must be used if, as in reli-
ability analysis, low fractiles of the fragility curve must be evalu-
ated. It is shown that linear models are slightly less accurate in
approximating the dependence of the structural capacity on the
explicit variables, but are less sensitive to the design adopted
and can be, in some cases, preferable with respect to quadratic
models.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of (Italian) Department of Civil Protection
(Reluis 2005 Grant – Task 7: Innovative techniques for seismic pro-
tection) is gratefully acknowledged.
References

[1] Wen YK. Reliability and performance-based design. Struct Safety

4.7. Linear models
Finally, Fig. 8 shows the envelopes of the fragility curves ob-
tained by adopting linear L-CCD-9 models and L-F1-9 models. In
the first case, the fragility curves are considerably scattered and
very sensitive to the specific groups of results adopted for calibra-
tion. L-F1-9 models give sufficiently stable results but predict
slightly conservative values (higher values of fragility curves). This
can be explained by observing from Fig. 4 that the mean structural
capacity predicted by the aforementioned models is always lower
than the reference values obtained by the Qfix-RND model.
5. Conclusions
In the present study, a RS-based method has been developed to
evaluate the seismic fragility curves of an RC frame structures. A
2001;23:407–28.
[2] Pinto PE, Giannini R, Franchin P. Seismic reliability analysis of
structures. Pavia: IUSS Press; 2004.
[3] Der Kiureghian A. Structural reliability methods for seismic safety assessment:
a review. Eng Struct 1996;18:412–24.
[4] Hwang HHM, Jaw J-W. Probabilistic damage analysis of structures. J Struct Eng
1990;116:1992–2007.
[5] Hwang HHM, Huo J-R. Generation of hazard-consistent fragility curves. Soil
Dynam Earthquake Eng 1994;13:345–54.
[6] Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS. Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic
structural damage. J Struct Eng 1996;122:1459–67.
[7] Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS. Bayesian updating of fragilities with application to
RC frames. J Struct Eng 1998;124:922–9.
[8] Shinozuka M et al. Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech
2000;126:1224–31.
[9] Cornell CA et al. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency
management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng
2002;128:526–33.
[10] Rosowsky DV, Ellingwood BR. Performance-based engineering of wood frame
housing: fragility analysis methodology. J Struct Eng 2002;128:32–8.
 N. Buratti et al. / Structural Safety 32 (2010) 42–51
[11] Wen YK, Ellingwood BR, Bracci JM. Vulnerability function framework for
consequence-based engineering. Middle America Earthquake Center, Report:
DS-4; 2004.
[12] Ramamoorthy SK, Gardoni P, Bracci JM. Probabilistic demand models and
fragility curves for reinforced concrete frames. J Struct Eng 2006;132:1563–72.
[13] Faravelli L. Response-surface approach for reliability analysis. J Eng Mech
1989;115:2763–81.
[14] Rajashekhar MR, Ellingwood BR. New look at the response surface approach
for reliability analysis. Struct Safety 1993;12:205–20.
[15] Casciati F, Faravelli L. Fragility analysis of complex structural systems. New
York: John Wiley and Sons; 1991.
[16] Veneziano D, Casciati F, Faravelli L. Method of seismic fragility for complicated
systems. In: 2nd CNSI Specialist meeting on probabilistic methods in seismic
risk assessment for NPP. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, CA; 1983.
[17] Box GEP, Draper NR. Empirical model-building and response surfaces. New
York: John Wiley and Sons; 1987.
[18] Khuri AI, Cornell JA. Response surfaces: designs and analyses. New
York: Marcel Dekker; 1996.
[19] Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE. Variance components. New York: John
Wiley and Sons; 1992.
[20] Franchin P et al. Seismic fragility of reinforced concrete structures using a
response surface approach. J Earthquake Eng 2003;7:45–77.
[21] Buratti N, Ferracuti B, Savoia M. Seismic fragility of existing RC structures by
response surface method. In: First European conference on earthquake
engineering and seismology, Geneva; 2006.
[22] Sabetta F, Pugliese A. Estimation of response spectra and simulation of
nonstationary earthquake ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am
1996;86:337–52.
[23] Buratti N, Ferracuti B, Savoia M. Recorded and simulated ground motion time
histories for seismic fragility analysis of RC structures. In: XII Conference of the
Associazione Nazionale Italiana di Ingegneria Sismica, Pisa; 2007.
51
[24] Pinto PE. Reliability methods in earthquake engineering. Prog Struct Eng Mater
2001;3:76–85.
[25] Shome N et al. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake
Spectra 1998;14:469–500.
[26] Luco N, Cornell CA. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-
source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra
2007;23:257–392.
[27] Franchin P et al. Response surface for seismic fragility analysis of RC structures.
In: Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, San
Francisco; 2003.
[28] Schotanus MIJ et al. Seismic fragility analysis of 3D structures. Struct Safety
2004;26:421–41.
[29] Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New
York: Springer; 2000.
[30] Box GEP, Wilson KB. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J
Roy Statist Soc 1951;B13:1–45.
[31] McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH. Open system for earthquake engineering
simulation (Opensees). Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA; 2000. http://
opensees.berkeley.edu.
[32] Ceb-Fip. Model Code 1990. Trowbridge: Redwood Books; 1993.
[33] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1989;114:1804–26.
[34] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dynam 2002;31:491–514.
[35] Press WH et al. Numerical recipes in C++: the art of scientific
computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
[36] Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB. The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to
dynamic analysis. J Earthquake Eng 2004;8:43–91.
[37] Buratti N, Ferracuti B, Savoia M. Seismic risk assessment of R/C structures
through response surface method. In: III European conference on
computational mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal; 2006.