Derivation of analytical fragility functions considering modelling

uncertainties
D. D’Ayala & A. Meslem
University College London, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT: The objective of this work is to examine the sensitivity of fragility functions to variation in pa-
rameters’ values that are related to structural characteristics and the dispersion related to modelling strategies.
For the structural characteristics, the parameters considered are concrete and reinforcement steel strength,
ductility, floor-to-floor story height, and strength of masonry infill panels. For modelling strategies, the dis-
persion due to the incompleteness of numerical models, such as ignoring the contribution of infill walls to the
structural response, is examined. The sensitivity analysis has been based on 3D nonlinear static analysis. The
classes of structures considered are RC buildings designed according to earlier seismic codes, which are in
general, characterized by poor quality of material. The result of sensitivity analysis shows that the considered
structural characteristics-related parameters were found to have a significant effect on the deformation capaci-
ty of the structure, a difference of up-to 100%, for different damage condition level. Regarding the contribu-
tion of masonry infill panels, it has been clearly observed that neglecting the shift in behaviour caused by the
presence of infill leads to inaccuracy in the derivation of fragility curves (large bias in fragility curves). Bare
frame model-based fragility curves trend to underestimate the vulnerability of the structure, comparing with
the result from infilled frame model-based fragility curves. The present study was conducted within the
framework of the research project “Global Vulnerability Estimation Methods” funded by the Global Earth-
quake Model (GEM) foundation.

1 INTRODUCTION In the present paper, the effect of such uncertain-

In seismic vulnerability assessment studies, the reli-
ability on any used methodology will depend upon
the sophistication of modelling structures, the adopt-
ed materials behaviour, and the simplified assump-
tions that are made to reduce the calculation efforts.
It has been widely observed in literature (e.g. Salva-
dor et al. 2008, Khan & Naqvi 2012) that many re-
searchers attempted to use default values for struc-
tural characteristics-related parameters, provided in
existing guidelines/codes and implemented in com-
monly used structural programs. Usually, this is due
either to lack of information, especially, for the case
of older structures where design documents are gen-
erally not available, or to expedience. Furthermore,
regarding the numerical modelling extensive litera-
ture review has shown that often vulnerability func-
tions for infilled RC buildings are generated from
analysis of bare frames structures (Kircil & Polat
2006, Howary & Mehanny 2011). As a conse-
quence, such assumptions and simplifications may
highly decrease the reliability and accuracy of the
obtained results due to the increase of epistemic un-
certainty in modelling.
ties on the derivation of fragility functions were in-
vestigated by conducting sensitivity analyses con-
sidering the variation in structural characteristics-
related parameters’ values, and the numerical model-
ling completeness. The classes of structures consid-
ered are low-ductility RC buildings designed accord-
ing to earlier seismic codes, and which are in general
characterized by poor quality of materials, work-
manship and detailing. To best identify the expected
mean and range for the various parameter analysed a
real frame in Turkey, is the reference prototype,
however the methodology and results obtained are
applicable to other typologies and locations, once
the basic data is available. The sensitivity study is
based on 3D nonlinear adaptive pushover analysis.
The observations of the influence of variability of
the selected parameters are conducted in terms of
deformation capacity, considering different damage
thresholds. The effect of model completeness is in-
vestigated by performing a comparative analysis of
fragility curves derived with and without consider-
ing the contribution of masonry infill panels.
 2 PROCEDURE OF ANALYSIS
2.1 Structural characteristics-related parameters
Very few studies have consistently analyzed the ef-
fect of the variability of several structural character-
istics or of the simplified modelling assumptions on
the generated fragility curves, with the scope of es-
timating the level of uncertainties that should be tak-
en into account. In the work by Liel & Deierlein
(2008), the sensitivity study was conducted by con-
sidering height and framing system as variable pa-
rameters. In the present study, the investigated struc-
tural characteristics-related parameters are those
associated to mechanical properties, geometric con-
figuration, and structural details; i.e: compressive
strength of concrete, yield strength of reinforcement,
strength and stiffness of infill walls (in terms of
compressive strength and thickness), story height,
and transverse reinforcement spacing. The choice of
expected mean and standard deviation for each pa-
rameter (see Table 1) is based on the results of struc-
tural characteristics assessment (Ay 2008, Bal et al.
2008), post-earthquakes surveys (EERI 2000, EEFIT
2003, Ellul 2006), the requirement from different
versions of earlier seismic codes, e.g. TS500 (TSE
1985), and other available references (Gulkan et al.
2002, Erol et al. 2004, Kappos 2006).
Table 1. Expected mean and range of value for the
structural characteristics-related parameters.
Mean Range of
Parameters
Value Value
Strength of reinforced concrete 17 MPa 14~20Mpa
Tensile strength of steel 260 MPa 200~320MPa
Transverse reinforcement spacing 200 mm 150~250mm
floor-to-floor Story height 2.8 MPa 2.5~3.2m
Thickness of infill walls 16 cm 13~19cm*
Compressive strength of infill walls 1.25 MPa 1.0~1.5MPa*
2.2 Analysis type and numerical modelling
The analyses have been based on the implementation
of Adaptive Pushover Analysis, using 3-D structures
as numerical models. One of the advantages in using
this type of analysis is that the variation in the struc-
tural stiffness at different deformation levels, and
consequently the system degradation can be better
accounted for.
With regard to the numerical modelling, fiber-
based structural modelling, which allows to discre-
tize the cross section of the member to account for
the different behaviour of cover and core concrete
and steel, was adopted to model reinforced concrete
members. By modelling separately the constitutive
material (i.e. the cover, core, and reinforcing steel)
and their distribution over the cross-section the pro-
gression of nonlinear phenomena in the concrete
member are more accurately simulated and hence
one can capture more accurately response effects on
such elements. For infill panels, the diagonal strut
model, which has been the most frequently used by
researchers and adopted in many documents and
guidelines (e.g. ASCE 2006, NZSEE 2006), was im-
plemented in this study.
 0 .4
a  0.175  h 
r (1)
 I col  inf
1
E t sin 2  4
 m inf 
  (2)
I  
 4 E f I col hinf 
Each infill panel is simulated with a pair of com-
pression struts, where “a” is the equivalent strut’s
width. Note that the buildings were modeled consid-
ering 50% of masonry infill walls (Paulay & Priest-
ley 1992).
With regard to the global threshold damage
states, three global limit states: Slight Damage,
Moderate Damage, and Near Collapse have been es-
timated from the analysis as a progression of local
damage through several structural elements. This is
done by calculating for each element geometry and
material characteristics, the ultimate concrete com-
pressive strain (Priestley et al. 1996), considering al-
so the limit of curvature corresponding to the condi-
tion of yielding curvature and ultimate curvature, as
indicated in Eurocode-8 (CEN 2004) and FEMA-
356 (ASCE 2000).
2.3 Selected models
Forty-two 3-D models, infilled frames and bare
frames structures, were analyzed. Detailed infor-
mation about the models can be found in Meslem &
D’Ayala (2013). For the considered structural char-
acteristics-related parameters, the values were
changed slightly representing the most probable
range for the case of existing low-ductility buildings
constructed with respect to earlier seismic codes.
The influence of these variations in the parameters’
values has been observed in terms of deformation
capacity for different damage conditions, obtained
from adaptive pushover analysis (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Resulted adaptive pushover curves for infilled frame
and bare frame structures.
3 EFFECT OF STRUCTURAL
CHARACTERSITCIS-RELATED
PARAMETERS
To be more consistent with the real behaviour of ex-
isting buildings, the effect of structural characteris-
tics-related parameters was examined considering
the case of infilled frame models. Figure 2 shows the
influence of the variation in structural characteris-
tics-related parameters’ values on the structural re-
sponse, for different damage condition in terms of
roof drift. Table 2 summarizes the level of sensitivi-
ty of the response to the change for each parameter
in terms of Coefficient of Variation (CV), defined as
ratio of standard deviation by mean value, and the
percentage difference (Diff) in deformation capacity
for different damage condition.
The result of sensitivity analysis has shown that
structural characteristics-related parameters are
found to have a significant effect on the structural
response, for different damage condition. Indeed, at
the highest level of damage a remarkable variation
(CV reaches a value up to 38%) in terms of defor-
mation capacity (roof drift) has been observed even
for a modest variation in compressive strength of
concrete (CV = 12.7%), as shown in Figure 2a and
Table 2; however, no significant difference in struc-
tural response has been found at the lowest level of
damage, i.e. Slight Damage.
For the tensile strength of steel, the effect has
been found to be pretty different comparing to the
compressive strength (Figure 2b). The effect is al-
most insignificant. For a CV= 16.1% of tensile
strength, the CV in deformation capacity increases

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 2. Sensitivity of the structure response to the variation in structural characteristics-related parameters’ values. (a) Varia-
tion in compressive strength of concrete. (b) Variation in tensile strength of steel. (c) Variation in transverse reinforcement spac-
ing. (d) Variation in storey height. (e) Variation in thickness of infill wall. (f) variation in compressive strength of infill wall.

Table 2. Effect of the variation in the structural characteristics-related parameters’ values on the structure re-
sponse
Parameters Parameters’ values Slight Damage Moderate Damage Near Collapse
CV CV Diff. CV Diff. CV Diff.
Range
[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
Strength of reinforced concrete (fc) 14MPa ~ 20MPa 12.71 4.13 11.11 37.47 197.56 32.28 139.08
Tensile strength of steel (fy) 200MPa ~ 320MPa 16.62 6.24 12.50 9.22 30.80 7.12 22.27
Transverse reinforcement spacing (S) 150mm ~ 250mm 19.76 0.00 0.00 17.01 48.39 13.24 39.50
floor-to-floor Story height (h) 2.5m ~ 3.2m 12.39 19.16 45.09 17.96 42.32 10.59 22.93
Thickness of infill walls (tw) 13cm ~ 19cm 18.75 31.49 66.67 19.85 49.23 16.65 39.68
Compressive strength of infill walls (fw) 1.0MPa ~ 1.5MPa 20.00 44.30 128.57 33.17 102.08 14.90 34.35
very slightly from Slight Damage to Moderate Dam- 4 MODEL COMPLETENESS
age and attains a value of only 9.2%, and then de-
creases to 7% at Near Collapse. Aiming to account for the effect of numerical model
Increased ductility is accounted for by transverse completeness, a comparative analysis is performed
reinforcement spacing, adopting a range of values between the two modeling hypotheses, inclusion of
obtained from literature on structural characteristics infills or simplified bare frame. The variation of re-
assessment in existing buildings (EERI 2000, Inel & sponse of the two modeling options for the same
Ozmen 2006). According to the results, the structur- range of parameters is shown in Figure 3. For the
al response has been found to be moderately affected same structural characteristics configuration, the in-
to the full range of variation in transversal rein- filled frame and bare frame models lead to a remark-
forcement spacing (s=150 to 250mm), as shown in able difference in estimating the response of the
Figure 2c. For a variation of spacing CV = 19.76%, building in terms of deformation capacity as shown
the CV in structural response attained a value of in Figure 3 and Table 3. The computed mean value
18% and 10.6% for Moderate Damage and Near of deformation capacity at Slight Damage level for
Collapse, respectively. At Slight Damage level, no the whole range of variation of all parameters, has
difference was observed in the structural response. been found to be 6 times greater for bare frame
Floor-to-floor story height also shows a moderate models than the one calculated for infilled frame
effect on the seismic performance of the structure models. At Moderate Damage level, the difference
(see Figure 2d). The full range of variation CV = in the structural response between infilled frame and
12.4% leads to comparable difference in roof drift at bare frame structures is 2.2 times greater for bare
different damage condition (CV in deformation ca- frame models than the value for infilled frame mod-
pacity reaches value from 10.6 to 19.2%). els. For Near Collapse, this factor, in terms of mean
The effect of strength and stiffness of infill walls value, is estimated to have a value of 1.8.
was examined in terms of compressive strength and
the thickness of infill walls. The sensitivity analysis
was conducted for values from 13cm to 19cm for
thickness and 1.0MPa to 1.5MPa for compressive
strength of masonry infill walls, as shown in Figures
2e and 2f, respectively. According to the result of
analyses, the two parameters have shown significant
effect on the structural performance, at Slight to
Moderate Damage condition. For a total variation of
the thickness of infill walls, 18.75%, the structural
response has been found to be CV=31.5% at Slight
Damage and decrease to 19.85% at Moderate Dam-
age. For CV=20% in compressive strength of infill
walls, the variation in structural response has been
found to be CV=44.3% at Slight Damage and de-
crease to 33.2% at Moderate Damage. Both parame- Figure 3. Comparison between the use of infilled frame and
ters show a significantly reduced effect on the struc- bare frame models for different structural characteristics con-
tural response at Near Collapse, CV=16.65% due to figuration.
variation of compressive strength and 14.9% due to
variation of thickness of infills, as the contribution Table 3. Sensitivity of structural response to the con-
of infill past the peak capacity is significantly re- tribution of masonry infill panels.
duced. This can be explained by the fact that the Roof Drift
damage in infills in general occurs at an early stage Slight Moderate Near
Damage Damage Collapse
comparing to the RC members (see Figure 1, soften-
Mean CV Mean CV Mean CV
ing branch of the curve); hence, the infills will start [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
to have less effect with increasing damage. Infilled Frame 0.08 8.71 0.69 24.88 1.30 20.35
While some authors have argued that uncertainty Bare Frame 0.48 7.54 1.53 5.96 2.29 18.10
and variations in mechanical characteristics might be Factor 6 2.2 1.8
considered not as critical as the uncertainty in the
seismic record (Pasticier et al. 2008), it is evident In order to derive fragility curves, the transfor-
from the results shown above that for low-ductility mation of adaptive pushovers curves, defined in
buildings characterized by poor quality of materials, terms of base shear vs. top displacement, into capac-
workmanship and detailing, structural characteris- ity curves, defined in terms of pseudo spectral accel-
tics-related parameters variation might have a signif- eration (Sa) vs. spectral displacement (Sd), was car-
icant effect on estimating realistic structural re- ried out using the standard approach documented in
sponse. many codes of practice, e.g. ATC-40 (ATC 1996);
HAZUS-MH MR3 (FEMA-NIBS 2003). Fragility 1 K 2 f
curves have been derived by selecting nineteen in- mln S  ln S  
0
 X2 k 
2 k 1 X k2
d
d
filled frame models, and nineteen bare frame models X k
(see Figure 3 for the selected models). Assuming a max min
(6)
1 K ln S dX k  2 ln S d0  ln S dX k
lognormal distribution fragility curves are defined as  ln S  
0
 2

the conditional probability of being in or exceeding,

a particular damage state dsi, given the spectral dis-
d
2 k 1 X k   Xk
max 2
  Xk

placement, Sd: and by assuming lognormality, the median capacity

is extracted as:
 1  S 
Pds  dsi | S d     ln d
 dsi  S d ,dsi



(3) S d  exp mln S   (7)
 d

The standard deviation of the logs (dispersion) is

where, S d ,dsi is the median value of spectral dis- estimated using a first-order derivative of f with re-
placement at which the building reaches the thresh- spect to Xk:
old of damage state dsi ;  ds i is the standard devia- 2
 fK

tion of the natural logarithm of spectral displacement    
2
  X2 k 
k 1  X k 
for damage state dsi ; Φ is the standard normal cu- Xk
(8)
mulative distribution function. 2
 ln S
K X k max
 ln S X k min  2
In this study, the median value S d and the  dis-   d d  X
 X
k 1 
max
 Xk
min  k

persion for every limit state are estimated using the k 

First-Order Second-Moment (FOSM) method, as
suggested by Vamvatsikos & Fragiadakis (2010) and
commonly used to estimate the uncertainty (Lee &
Mosalam 2005, Baker & Cornell 2008,). For the im-
plementation of this method, the number of simula-
tions required is 2K+1, where K is the number of
random variables. For a given limit state, the log of
the median is considered as a function of the random
parameters. As four random parameters have been
used, this can be written as follows:
ln S d  f  X   f  fc , fy , s , h  (4)
where f is a function of the random variables, and X
( X   fc , fy , s ,h ) is the vector of random modelling
parameters with mean:

X   fc ,  fy ,  S ,  h  (5)
The random parameters are set equal to their mean
 X k (where, k = 1,..., 4) to evaluate ln S d0 . The re-
main 2K simulations are obtained by considering in
turn the parameter’ values (Xk   X k ) while all other
variables remain equal to their mean  X j with j≠k,
max
obtaining ln S dX and ln S dX min .
Using the second derivative of f with respect to
Xk, the median-centered is estimated as:
Using the aforementioned procedure, Figure 4
shows the fragility curves that have been derived for
each set of modeling choices, i.e., infilled frame and
bare frame structures. For each random parameter,
 Xk has been estimated using uniform distribution.
Each fragility curve is defined by a median value of
spectral displacement corresponding to the damage
state threshold, and by the dispersion (β) associated
with that damage state, as shown in Table 4. It is ev-
ident form Figure 4 the role played by the inclusion
or exclusion of the masonry infill in the modelling.
The exclusion of infills’ contribution leads to a sig-
nificant bias in fragility curves. The median capacity
varies by a factor of 5.8, 2.4, and 1.7 for Slight
Damage, Moderate Damage, and Near Collapse, re-
spectively (Table 4).
Moreover, when masonry infilled RC building are
modeled as bare frame structure, the resulted fragili-
ty curves show greater lateral displacement capacity
for all damage levels; whereas, the building is found
to be more vulnerable when the infilled frame model
is used. Indeed, the result of pushover analysis has
shown that the first-storey mechanism is the most
recurring, and modeling the infills leads to the oc-
currence of this mechanism for smaller drifts com-
pared to the case of bare frame assumption. The cur-
rent modeling, as implemented does not explicitly
accounts for shear failure in columns. Indeed, shear
column failure might have a significant effect on the
structure performance, especially for structures de-
signed without considering horizontal actions, or
building with low concrete strength.

Figure 4. Comparisons of fragility curves of the structures with
and without considering the contribution of masonry infill
walls.
Table 4. Median value and dispersion calculated for
each threshold of damage state, and used in Figure 4.
Slight Moderate Near
Damage Damage Collapse
System Medi- Medi- Medi-
an β an β an
[mm] [mm] [mm]
Infilled Frames 7 0.18 55 0.38 107
Bare Frames 40 0.15 130 0.11 187
Factor 5.8 2.4 1.7
With regards to the dispersion, β, to account for
uncertainty in the structural capacity, different val-
ues are proposed in literature. For instance, Kappos
et al. (2006) constructed fragility curves by assum-
ing a default value of 0.3 and 0.25 for the uncertain-
ty in the capacity for low and high code buildings,
respectively, for all building types and all damage
states. These values have been suggested by FEMA-
NIBS (2003). Throughout the study by Shahzada et
al. (2011) a same default value of 0.3 was assigned
for the uncertainty associated with the capacity
curve of buildings for all damage states, as it is pro-
posed in Wen et al. (2004). Satter and Liel (2010)
and Raghunandan et al. (2012) have used a default
value of 0.5, which has been suggested based on
previous research work by Liel et al. (2009), to ac-
count for uncertainty due to the structural modelling,
for Collapse level only.
The results shown in the previous sections have
clearly shown that the value of dispersion, β, varies
from one state of damage to the next, and this varia-
tion is neither linear nor monotonic. For buildings
associated to poor structural characteristic, studied in
this work, the value of β is found to be bigger for the
Moderate Damage for the case of infilled frame
model (β = 0.38), while for bare frame the biggest
value is found to be at Near Collapse (β = 0.26). On
the other hand, β is found to be smaller at the Slight
Damage for the two modelling options (β = 0.18 for
infilled frame, and 0.15 for bare frame model).
Note that these different values of β, which have
been used in the derivation of fragility curves in
Figure 4, were computed considering structural ca-
pacity variability (i.e. structural characteristics and
numerical modeling) only, without considering
structural demand variability, i.e. the record-to-
record dispersion in ground motion. In order to ac-
count for record-to-record variability, the dispersion
calculated from the numerical analysis, β, is com-
bined with a value of lognormal distribution disper-
sion of 0.45 (i.e.  Total   2  0.45 2 ) as suggested
in ATC-58 (ATC 2011) in absence of specific data.
The resulted fragility curves are shown in Figure 5,
where, the effect of masonry infill contribution re-
main still remarkable and clearly can be noticed.
β
0.30
0.26
Figure 5. Comparisons of fragility curves considering disper-
sion in structural characteristics, numerical modeling, and
.record-to-record dispersion in ground motion.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The present study investigate the effect of uncertain-
ties on the derivation of fragility functions by con-
ducting sensitivity analyses considering the variation
in structural characteristics-related parameters’ val-
ues, and the numerical modelling completeness. It
was clearly observed that special care should be giv-
en when assigning values to represent the structural
characteristics, especially, material characteristics-
related values. Concrete and masonry strength-
related variation values have shown a significant ef-
fect on the building capacity, and this effect increase
with the progress of damage condition for the con-
crete.
The comparison of fragility curves between the
two modelling options, infilled and bare frames has
shown a remarkable bias, leading to a significant dif-
ference in predicting the seismic performance of the
building. Modelling building as bare frame structure
lead to underestimate the risk of damage.
However, some limitations need to be considered
regarding the outcome of this present study. Indeed,
difficulty has been encountered to predict shear fail-
ure which is still not fully understood despite much
experimental research and analysis.
 For the masonry infills, the two parameters con-
sidered in the sensitivity analysis are compressive
strength and thickness of infills. However, this ele-
ment is also associated to many other complex pa-
rameters that can be a source of significant uncer-
tainty, such as, reduced strut width, strain at
maximum stress, ultimate strain. These parameters
are in general calibrated directly from experiment.
The dispersion and median values where comput-
ed using the FOSM method, which might have a
significant sensitivity to the choice of the step of
simulation (i.e., X k max  X k min in the Equations 6 and
8). Hence, more investigation should be conducted
with this regards.
6 REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2000. FEMA-
356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabili-
tation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agen-
cy, Washington, DC.
[5] Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2011. Seismic per-
formance assessment of buildings, Volume 1 - Methodolo-
gy, ATC-58-1 75% Draft. Redwood City, CA, 2011
Applied Technology Council (ATC). 1996. Seismic evaluation
and retrofit of concrete buildings, ATC-40. Redwood City,
CA.
Ay, B.O. & Erberik, A. 2008. Vulnerability of Turkish low-rise
and mid-rise reinforced concrete frame structures. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering12: 2-11.
Bal, E.I, Crowley, H. & Pinho, R. 2008. Detail assessment of
structural characteristics of Turkish RC buildings stock for
loss assessment models. Soil Dynamic and Earthquake En-
gineering 28: 914-932.
Beker, J.W. & Cornell, C.A. 2008. Uncertainty propagation in
probabilistics seismic loss estimation. Structural Safety 30:
236-252.
Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team (EEFIT).
2003. The Kocaeli, Turkey earth-quake of 17 August 1999.
Institution of Structural Engineers, a Field Report by EEF-
IT.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). 2000.
Kocaeli. Tyurkey, earthquake of August 17, 1999: recon-
naissance report. Earthquake Spectra.
Ellul, F.L. 2006. Static nonlinear finite element analysis of low
engineered masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames for
seismic assessment, PhD Thesis, University of Bath.
Erol, G., Yuksel, E., Saruhan, H., Sagbas, G., Tuga, P.T. &
Karadogan, H.F. 2004. A comple-mentary experimental
work on brittle portioning walls and strengthening by car-
bon fi-bers. Proceeding of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2004. Design
of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Eurocode-8,
ENV 1998-1-1, Brussels, Belgium.
Federal Emergency Management Agency – National Institute
of Building Sciences (FEMA-NIBS), 2003. Multi-hazard
loss estimation methodology – earthquake model:
HAZUS®MH Advanced engineering building module -
Technical and user’s manual, Washington DC.
Gulkan, P., Aschhein, . M. & Spence, R. 2002. Reinforced
concrete frame building with ma-sonry infills, World Hous-
ing Encyclopedia, Report No. 64.
Howary, H.A. & Mehanny, S.S.F. 2011. Seismic vulnerability
evaluation of RC moment frame buildings in moderate
seismic zones. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy-
namics 40: 215-235.
Inel, M. & Ozmen, H.B. 2006. Effects of plastic hinge proper-
ties in nonlinear analysis of re-inforced concrete buildings.
Engineering Structures 28: 1494-1502.
Kappos, A.J., Panagopoulos, G. & Penelis, G. 2006. A hybrid
method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM
buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 4: 391-413.
Khan, R.A. & Naqvi, T. 2012. Reliability analysis of steel
building frame under earthquake forces. International
Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineer-
ing 2: 356-361.
Kircil, M.S. & Polat, Z. 2006. Fragility analysis of mid-rise
R/C frame buildings. Engineer-ing Structures 28: 1335-
1345.
Lee, T.H. & Mosalam, K.M. 2005. Seismic demand sensitivity
of reinforced concrete shear-wall building using FOSM
method, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
34: 1719-1736.
Liel, A.B., Haselton, C.B., Deierlein, G.G. & Baker, J.W.
2009. Incorporating modelling uncer-tainties in the assess-
ment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Structural Safety
31: 197-211.
Liel, A.B. & Deierlein, G.G. 2008. Assessment the collapse
risk of California’s existing reinforced concrete frame
structures: Metrics for seismic safety decisions. Blume
Center Technical Report No. 166.
Meslem, A. & D’Ayala, D. 2013. Investigation into analytical
vulnerability curves derivation aspects considering model-
ling uncertainty for infilled buildings. Proceeding of the 4th
International Conference on Computational Methods in
Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
(COMPDYN’13), Kos Island Greece.
Pasticier, L. Amadio, C. & Fragiacomo, M. 2008. Non-linear
seismic analysis and vulnera-bility evaluation of a masonry
building by means of the SAP2000 V.10 code. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 37, 467-485.
Paulay, T. & Priestley, M.J.N. 1992. Seismic Design of Rein-
forced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Priestley, M.J.N. Seible, F. & Calvi, G.M.S. 1996. Seismic de-
sign and retrofit of bridges. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Raghunandan, M., Liel, A.B. , Ryu, H., Luco, N. & Uma, S.R.
2012. Aftershock fragility curves and tagging assessment
for a mainshock-damaged building. 15th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Salvador, S., Monica, A., Michael, S., Cristian, J. & Luis, E.
2008. Seismic response of rein-forced concrete buildings in
Caracas, Venezuela. The 14th World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Beijin, China, October 12-17.
Sattar, S. & Liel, A.B. 2010. Seismic performance of rein-
forced concrete frame structures with and without masonry
infill walls. 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Confer-
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada.
Shahzada, K., Gencturk, B., Khan, A.N., Naseer, A., Javed, M.,
& Fahad, M. 2011. Vulnerabil-ity assessment of typical
buildings in Pakistan. International Journal of Earth Sci-
ences and Engineering 4: 208-211.
Turkish Standards Institute (TSE). 1985. TS-500, Building code
requirements for reinforced concrete. Ankara, Turkey.
Vamvatsikos, D. & Fragiadakis, M. 2010. Incremental dynamic
analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and
uncertainty, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy-
namics 39: 141-163.
Wen, Y.K., Ellingwood, B.R. & Bracci, J. 2004. Vulnerability
function framework for consequence-based engineering.
Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center, Project DS-4 Re-
port.