International Journal of Engineering Research
Volume No.5 Issue: Special 3, pp: 591-594
Development of Fragility Curves for RC Buildings
Vazurkar U. Y., Chaudhari, D. J.
Department of Applied Mechanics, Government College of Engineering, Amravati, Maharashtra,
India-444604
E-mail: umeshvazurkar@gmail.com, dilipbhanu.chaudhari@gmail.com
Abstract: The damage to the buildings during recent
earthquakes has demonstrated the need of seismic evaluation
which is used to predict the probability of damage to the
building. This paper describes the vulnerability assessment
of reinforced concrete buildings using fragility curves.
Fragility curves are used to describe the probability of
damage being exceeded a particular damage state. For the
development of fragility curves, guidelines given by HAZUS
technical manual have been used. For the analysis, the RC
buildings were modelled in SAP2000 v14. Non-linear static
analysis procedure is used for the analysis of RC buildings.
The pushover analysis is carried out as per the ATC40
guidelines. Capacity curve is generated as a result of
pushover analysis. Results from pushover analysis are used
for plotting fragility curves. The Fragility Curves are plotted
considering Spectral Displacement as a ground motion
parameter. Various ‘damages states’ are used to describe the
damage level of the buildinggiven in HAZUS technical
manual. Finally, using constructed fragility curves the
spectral displacement values that satisfy the ‘slight’,
‘moderate’, ‘extensive’, ‘complete’ performance level
requirements were estimated. The fragility curves developed
from the analysis were used to study the seismic performance
of building models.
Keywords: Fragility Curves, HAZUS, Damage States, Ground
Motion Parameters
I. Introduction
Seismic vulnerability assessment is a method used for
quantification of risk involved due to expected earthquake in a
region. The vulnerability is usually represented in terms of
either Damage Probability Matrices (DPM) or Vulnerability
(Fragility) curves. The seismic vulnerability of structures is
commonly expressed through probabilistic fragility functions
representing the conditional probability of reaching or
exceeding a predefined damage state given the measure of
earthquake shaking. Fragility curves are the conditional
probability of exceedance of response of a structure for a
given ground motion intensity. Fragility curves are used
commonly for the estimation of probability of structural
damage due to earthquakes as a function of ground motion
indices or other design parameters. The most basic inelastic
method of seismic analysis is complete non-linear time history
analysis. But this method is complex and requires much time
for completion. Therefore, Non-linear static procedures are
used in this paper for the generation of fragility curves as per
the HAZUS [1] manual.
Three building frame models were considered in this
paper for the development of fragility curves. Spectral
displacement is used as a ground motion parameter. SAP200
NCASE@2016 doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i3/016
ISSN:2319-6890(online),2347-5013(print)
27-28 Feb. 2016
v14 is used for the modeling of building and pushover
analysis. Results from pushover analysis are used for
development of fragility curves. The infill walls are not
considered in modeling of RC buildings
II. Literature review
The researchers have recognized that the need of
vulnerability assessment for seismic evaluation of buildings.
They have identified Fragility curves is one of the tool for
vulnerability assessment. The literature has been referred from
various research papers is illustrated.
Murat and Zekeriya (2006) presented a study on
Fragility analysis of mid-rise RC buildings. They had
performed incremental dynamic analysis on 3, 5, 7 storey RC
buildings using 12 artificial earthquake records.Yielding and
collapse capacity of the buildings was determined from the
analysis. They used PGA and elastic spectral displacement as
ground motion parameters. Also they used inter-storey drift
and spectral displacement values as a damage measurement
parameter.
Farsi, et.al. (2015) presented a work to estimate the
seismic vulnerability of existing buildings in Algeria. For this
purpose, capacity curves were developed for the reinforced
concrete buildings using push-over method. In the modeling
of nonlinearity three types of plastic hinges were considered
which are Flexural plastic hinges (M2, M3), Compound
compression and bending plastic hinges (PMM), and shear
plastic hinges (V2, V3). The analysis was performed using
ETABS software.Four performance levels, corresponding to
the expected damage after an earthquake OL, IO, LS and CP
were considered in the vulnerability assessment of buildings in
Algeria. Elastic response spectra, plotted for each soil type in
acceleration vs. period coordinates are based on estimates of
seismic coefficients CA and CV presented in ATC-
40(4)report.
Raipure P. (2015) presented a study on development of
fragility curves for open ground storey buildings. She had
used probabilistic seismic demand model (PSDM) as per
power law for the generation of fragility curves. a typical ten
storied OGS framed building was considered and the building
considered is located in Seismic Zone-V. The design forces
for the ground storey columns were evaluated based on
various codes such as Indian, Euro, Israel, and Bulgarian
suggested approach. She designed various OGS frames
considering MF as 1.0, 2.1 (Israel), 2.5 (Indian), 3.0
(Bulgarian), and 4.68 (Euro). The performance of each
building was studied using the fragility analysis method
introduced by Cornell et. al (2002). Twenty computational
models were developed in the program ETABs for nonlinear
dynamics analysis for each case. For the analysis, a set of
twenty natural time histories was selected.
Page 591
 International Journal of Engineering Research
Volume No.5 Issue: Special 3, pp: 591-594
III. System Development
In this paper the methodology used for development of
fragility curve is divided into two parts. Firstly pushover
analysis is performed on building models in SAP2000 v14.
The results from pushover analysis are used for generation of
fragility curves as per HAZUS manual.
3.1 Pushover Analysis
Displacement based pushover analysis is performed in
SAP2000 v14 as per the guidelines given in FEMA 356 and
ATC40. As per the FEMA 356 target displacement is
necessary to perform displacement based pushover analysis.
This target displacement is given by equation (1)
Δt= C0C1C2C 3SaTe 2g / 4π2 (1)
Where, C0,C1,C2,C3 are modification factors. The
values of the modification factors are available in section
3.3.3.3.2 of FEMA 356.
After the analysis in SAP, Capacity curve in the form
of Base shear vs Roof displacement will be obtained from
display menu. This capacity curve is converted into ADRS
(Acceleration Displacement Response Spectra) format.
Performance point is obtained as intersection of capacity
spectra and elastic demand spectra.
3.2 HAZUS methodology
There has been numerous works in the literature for the
evaluation of the fragility curves of the structures. However
For the development of fragility curves, guidelines given by
HAZUS technical manual have been used. HAZUS
methodology was developed for FEMA by National Institute
of Building Science (NIBS) to reduce seismic hazard in
United States. HAZUS technical manual provides the
procedure for deriving the fragility curves for different types
of structures. Building fragility curves are lognormal functions
that describe the probability of reaching, or exceeding,
structural and non-structural damage states, given median
estimates of spectral response, for example spectral
displacement. These curves take into account the variability
and uncertainty associated with capacity curve properties,
damage states and ground shaking. For a given damage state,
P [S | Sd ], P [M| Sd], P [E | Sd], P [C | Sd] a fragility curve is
well described by the following lognormal probability density
function
P[ ds | Sd ] = Φ[ ln( )] (2)
Where is Sd,ds the threshold spectral displacement,βds
is the standard deviation of the natural logarithm of this
spectral displacement, Φ is the standard normal cumulative
distribution function and Sd is the spectral displacement of the
structure. Table (1) shows how the thresholds obtain from
capacity spectrum.
P [S | Sd] = probability of being in or exceeding a
slight damage state, S.
P [M | Sd] = probability of being in or exceeding a
moderate damage state, M.
P [E | Sd] = probability of being in or exceeding an
extensive damage state, E.
P [C | Sd] = probability of being in or exceeding a
complete damage state, C.
Table 1: Damage state thresholds defines with the
agreement of capacity spectrum (1)
NCASE@2016 doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i3/016
ISSN:2319-6890(online),2347-5013(print)
27-28 Feb. 2016
Damage States Spectral Displacements
(Sd,ds)
Slight 0.7Dy
Moderate Dy
Extensive Dy + 0.25(Du – Dy)
Complete Du
Where,
Sd is spectral displacement and suffix 1, 2, 3, 4 show
slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, and
complete collapse respectively.
Ay = yield spectral acceleration
Au = ultimate spectral acceleration.
Dy = yield spectral displacement
Du = ultimate spectral displacement
So now in the formula of cumulative normal
distributive probability, value of Sd was found from pushover
analysis result and the value of is taken from HAZAUS
Technical manual (table 5.11- 5.11d). Figure (1) shows
Example damage state medians of saw-tooth pushover curve.
Figure 1: Example damage state medians of saw tooth
pushover curve (1)
IV. Results and Discussion
In this paper three building models are considered for
the development of fragility curves. Fragility curves are
generated for four damage states as per HAZUS. Results of
one of the building model are validated. No infill walls were
considered in the modeling of all the buildings. Spectral
displacement is used as ground motion parameter.
4.1 Building Model 1:
A Three dimensional model of G+3 RCC frame is
considered. The model specification and the loading data
isgiven in Table (2). This frame is designed for gravity loads
in SAP 2000 v14. Pushover analysis is performed for the
gravity load designed frame. The given G+3 building frame is
considered as validation case for the study of intrest. The
probability of damage for a particular damage state is worked
out. Then comparison of values corresponding to probability
of damage with the validation paper [6] is done.
Page 592
 International Journal of Engineering Research ISSN:2319-6890(online),2347-5013(print)
Volume No.5 Issue: Special 3, pp: 591-594 27-28 Feb. 2016

Table 2: Description of Building Model 1
Description
Number of Stories
Height of Storey
Grade of steel
Grade of Concrete
Density of RC members
Live load on floors
Slab thickness
considered are 3000mm x 300mm and 300mm x 500mm
Value respectively [7]. All the columns have four reinforcement bars
4 with diameter equal to 16 mm, 14 mm and 12 mm at I, II and
3.5 m III-IV floor levels, respectively. Percentage values of the
Fe 415 reinforcements are in the 0.50–0.68% range. Transverse
M25 reinforcement is made up of 6 mm hoops with constant
25 kN/m3 spacing equal to 0.15 m. Beam reinforcement is constant along
the height with percentages equal to about 0.5%.
3.5 kN/m2
120 mm

The fragility curve obtained considering four damage

states is shown in figure (2).

Figure 3: Pushover Curve for Building Model 2

Figure 2: Fragility Curve for Building Model 1

The probability of damage or the probability of

exceedancefor the four damage states i.e. Slight, Moderate,
Extensive and Collapse can be read from the fragility curve.
The table 3 shows the probability of exceedanceof particular
damage state for the spectral displacement value of 0.15 m.

Table 3: Comparison of Probability of Damage State

Damage Reference SAP
State Paper analysis
Probability Probability
of damage of Damage
Slight 0.98 0.99 Figure 4: Fragility Curve for Building Model 2
Moderate 0.82 0.90
Extensive 0.65 0.79 Plot of Capacity of capacity spectrum curve obtained is
Complete 0.48 0.47 shown in figure 3. This figure represents the capacity and
response spectrum plots. The graph obtained of pushover
4.2 Building Model 2: curve is converted into ADRS(Acceleration Displacement
A typical 4-storey 2-bay RC frame that represents a \Response Spectra) format. The co-ordinates of performance
symmetric building in plan is considered in the building model point valueisshown in figure 3. Performance point is estimated
2[7]. Grades of concrete and steel are taken as M25 and Fe415 using ATC 40 method. SAP2000v14 will directly give the
respectively. Typical bay width and column height are value of spectral acceleration and spectral displacement
selected as 5m and 3m respectively. A live load of 2 kN/m2 is corresponding to performance point..
considered at all floor levels. The total width of building is of
10.0 m having 2 bays, width of each bay is 5.0 m. The total The value of spectral displacement corresponding to
height of the building is 12.0 m, having 4 storeys, height of performance point is used to plot fragility curve.
each storey being 3 m. The size of typical columns and beams
NCASE@2016 doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i3/016 Page 593
 International Journal of Engineering Research
Volume No.5 Issue: Special 3, pp: 591-594
The spectral displacement value corresponding to
performance point is 0.022 m. The fragility curve for building
model 2 is shown in figure 4.
4.3 Building Model 3:
A two dimensional, 3 storey reinforced concrete frame
isanalysed [8]. The frame has 2 openings of 4.85 m and 3.25
m, respectively, and a ground floor of 5 m high and two others
of 2.55 m. The properties of the used materials are presented
in Table 4. The columns cross-section dimensions are 60 × 60
cm for the ground floor, 55 × 55 cm for the first floor and
50x50 cm for the second one. The longitudinal steel rebars
have diameters of 20 mm, and the transversal reinforcement is
made of stirrups of 8 mm, spaced at 12 cm in the potentially
plastic areas and in the beam–column connections of the
column. The beam cross-section dimensions are 30 × 60 cm
for level +4.95 m and 30 × 45 cm for levels +7.50 m and
+10.05 m, respectively. The reinforcement consists of bars
with diameters of, respectively, 16 mm, 18 mm and 20 mm in
the longitudinal direction, and stirrups of 8 mm spaced at 10
cm in the support areas and at 15 cm in the field.
Table 4: Material Properties of Building Model 3
Materia
ls c y u frame buildings”, Engineering Structures, 28, 2006, 1335-1345.
Pa
Concret
e 0 .2 0.5
Longitu
dinal 10 .3 55 70
Reinforcement
Shear
Reinforcement 10 .3 55 60
The pushover curve is obtained in SAP2000 v14. Based
on the spectral displacement values that satisfies the damage
level as per HAZUS manual, the fragility curve is plotted.
Figure 5: Fragility Curve for Building Model 3
NCASE@2016 doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5i3/016
ISSN:2319-6890(online),2347-5013(print)
27-28 Feb. 2016
5 Summary and Conclusions
In this study, HAZUS methodology for the generation
of fragility curves is discussed and the fragility curves are
generated for low-rise RC building structures without
considering infill walls. From the results generated, it is
concluded that this methodology gives an idea to predict the
damage level of the building corresponding to particular value
of spectral displacement. The damage state of the building is
also identified from the above analysis.
As HAZUS method works on non-linear static
procedures, it is also concluded that the results from this paper
need to be compared with another method, such as time-
history, which is expected as future scope for this paper.
REFERENCES
i. FEMA, HAZUS technical manual MH MR1,
Earthquake loss estimation methodology, Department of homeland
security, Washington DC, USA, 2003.
ii. Murat S. K., “Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C
iii. Farsi M. et. al., “Seismic Vulnerability of
Reinforced Concrete Structures in Tizi-Ouzou City (Algeria)”, 1st
International Conference on Structural Integrity, science direct,
2015, 838 – 845.
iv. ATC40, seismic evaluation and retrofit of
concrete buildings-volume I, Report no. SSC 96-01, Redwood city,
Applied Technology Council, 1996.
v. Raipure P., seismic vulnerability assessment of
open ground storey RC buildings by using fragility curves,
Government College of Engineering, Amravati, M-Tech thesis,
2013-14.
vi. Borele. S, Damage assessment of structural
systems using fragility curves, Journal of civil engineering and
environmental technology, volume 2, june 2015, pp 72-76.
vii. Angelo Masi, Seismic vulnerability saaessment of
gravity load designed RC frames, Bulletin of earthquake
engineering, 2003, 371-395.
viii. IoanaOlteanuet. al., Vulnerability and risk
evaluation for a reinforced concrete frame, Bulletin of earthquake
engineering, April 2011
ix. FEMA 356, Pre-standard and commentary for seismic
rehabilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington DC, USA, 2000.
Page 594