See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313790991

Vertical Irregularity of Buildings: Regularity Index versus Seismic Risk

Article  in  ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems Part A Civil Engineering · January 2017
DOI: 10.1061/AJRUA6.0000900

CITATIONS READS
48 6,382

3 authors:

Avadhoot Bhosale Robin Davis

National Institute of Technology Rourkela National Institute of Technology Calicut
9 PUBLICATIONS   140 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   423 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pradip Sarkar
National Institute of Technology Rourkela
80 PUBLICATIONS   584 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Light weight Infill Masonry View project

Seismic evaluation of RC setback building View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pradip Sarkar on 28 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vertical Irregularity of Buildings:
Regularity Index versus Seismic Risk
A. S. Bhosale 1; Robin Davis 2; and Pradip Sarkar 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Roukela on 09/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The seismic performance of buildings with irregular distribution of mass, stiffness, and strength along the height may be sig-
nificantly different from that of regular buildings. Design codes prohibit construction or recommend special seismic design of such buildings
depending on the level of irregularity and site hazard. It is generally believed that the regular buildings have a dominant fundamental mode
participation in their seismic response and as the irregularity increases the contribution of higher mode increases. Accordingly, previous
studies have proposed methodologies to quantify the vertical irregularity of the buildings in terms of their fundamental mode properties.
This paper checks the adequacy of fundamental mode properties for the quantification of vertical irregularity. Further, this study attempts to
check the correlation between existing vertical irregularity indicators and the seismic risk. Seismic risks of selected vertically irregular build-
ings in terms of fragility curve, annual probability of collapse, and drift hazard curve indicates that there is no correlation between existing
vertical irregularity indicators based on fundamental mode properties and seismic risks. Results of seismic risk analysis show building frames
with open-ground story and floating columns are found to be more vulnerable than a similar regular building. However, stepped and setback
building frames perform even better than a regular frame. Therefore, stepped and setback buildings under the category of vertical geometric
irregularity needs to be investigated in detail to validate the special design requirements recommended by design codes. DOI: 10.1061/
AJRUA6.0000900. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Vertical irregularity; Framed building; Fragility curve; Seismic risk; Reinforced concrete; Drift hazard curve.

Introduction It is generally thought that the contribution of higher modes to

The behavior of multistory framed buildings subjected to strong
earthquake motions depends on the distribution of its mass, stiff-
ness, and strength in both horizontal and vertical planes. In such
buildings damages from earthquake ground motion generally ini-
tiates at locations of structural weaknesses present in the lateral
load-resisting frames. In some cases, these weaknesses may be
due to discontinuities in stiffness, strength, or mass between adja-
cent stories. Major international design codes [IS 1893 (Indian
Standard 2002); NZS 1170.5 (New Zealand Standard 2004);
ASCE/SEI 7-10 (ASCE 2010); ICC 2015, etc.) classified irregular-
ity into two categories: vertical and horizontal. The present study
considers vertical irregularities in RC framed buildings. There are
five different vertical irregularities listed in ASCE/SEI 7-10: stiff-
ness irregularity, mass irregularity, vertical geometric irregularity,
in-plane discontinuity in vertical lateral force-resisting element,
and strength irregularity. Design codes prohibit construction or rec-
ommend special seismic design of such buildings depending on the
level of irregularity and site hazard. However, the quantification of
irregularity of such given buildings in the design codes is not al-
ways supported by its structural characteristics.
1
Ph.D. Scholar, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, Odisha
769008, India. E-mail: avadhoot11@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela,
Odisha 769008, India (corresponding author). E-mail: robind@nitrkl.ac.in
3
Associate Professor, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela,
Odisha 769008, India. E-mail: sarkarp@nitrkl.ac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 3, 2016; approved on
September 27, 2016; published online on January 23, 2017. Discussion
period open until June 23, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the ASCE-ASME Journal
of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 2376-7642.
the seismic response of irregular buildings is significant. Many pre-
vious researchers reported that the higher mode participation
increases with the increase in building irregularity. Accordingly,
many of the previous studies correlate irregularity of the building
with its fundamental mode properties and proposed methods to
quantify the irregularity. Table 1 presents the different definitions
of the regularity index proposed in previous literature (Karavasilis
et al. 2008; Sarkar et al. 2010; Varadharajan et al. 2013) to quantify
the vertical irregularity.
An important aspect of these studies while defining vertical
irregularity is that the proposed theories were purely based on indi-
vidual perceptions with no engineering justification. A review
study by De Stefano and Pintucchi (2008) also concluded that de-
sign codes are in need of improvement of the existing methods in
order to define indicators that actually predict irregular behavior.
Therefore, it is important to check the validity of existing vertical
irregularity indicators by establishing a correlation between first-
mode properties of vertically irregular buildings and its seismic risk
quantitatively. This is the underlying motivation of the present
study.
This study investigates the vertical irregularity of buildings con-
sidering two important parameters: higher elastic mode participa-
tion and seismic risk. Three different types of vertically irregular
building that are commonly encountered in urban construction
are considered in the present study: setback building representing
vertical geometric irregularity, building with floating columns
(FCs) representing in-plane discontinuity, and open-ground story
(OGS) building representing a soft and weak story. A similar regular
building having no unusual irregularity in spatial form is also studied
as a reference.
Mode participation factors and effective modal masses in the
fundamental mode of selected buildings have been evaluated from
modal analysis with the goal of finding the correlation between the

© ASCE 04017001-1 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2017, 3(3): 04017001
 Table 1. Quantification of Irregularity Proposed in the Previous Literature
References Building type
Karavasilis et al. (2008) Steel setback frame
Sarkar et al. (2010) RC stepped frame
Varadharajan et al. (2013) RC setback frame
Note: H i and Li = height from base and width of i’th floor; ns and nb = number of story and number of bays at the first story of the frame; Γ1 and Γ1;ref = first
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Roukela on 09/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mode participation factor of stepped and similar regular building; ωk;ir and ωk;r = k’th mode frequency of irregular and regular building.
higher mode participation and irregularity. Seismic risks of these
buildings are evaluated using performance-based seismic design
and assessment guidelines to find the correlation between the seis-
mic risk and first mode-based vertical irregularity indicators.
Selected Buildings
Three different types of vertically irregular buildings commonly
encountered in construction practice are considered in the present
study: the setback building representing vertical geometric irregu-
larity, a building with floating columns representing in-plane dis-
continuity, and an OGS building representing soft and weak story
irregularity. A regular building is also considered as a reference.
Setback buildings are characterized by staggered, abrupt reduc-
tions in the floor area along the height of the building, with cor-
responding drops in mass, strength, and stiffness. Buildings with
both single and multiple setbacks are popular in urban areas, and
both of these forms separately received attention in the research.
Therefore, two building models, one with a single setback (SB)
(where a narrow tower projects from a wide base) and the other
with multiple setbacks [popularly known as stepped building
(ST)] are considered in this study.
A common form of discontinuity in the load path of moment
frames arises with floating columns, i.e., when a column is intro-
duced at higher floor levels, have more open space available on the
lower floor.
Open-ground story buildings are the most common form of
irregularity especially in populated metropolitan cities where the
ground story is built without any infill walls to allow easy move-
ment of vehicles, but the upper stories are covered with infill walls.
The sudden reduction in lateral stiffness and strength of the ground
story in OGS buildings results in large lateral displacements in
ground floor level, which increases the curvature and force in the
ground story columns.
In order to keep the focus on the establishment of the correlation
between first mode properties and their seismic risks, one code-
designed 8-story RC building that is regular in plan is considered.
The results of this study remain valid for all different building
models provided the building is symmetric in plan. Plan asymmetry
due to several reasons such as asymmetric distribution of mass
and stiffness in plan and asymmetric arrangement of infill openings
in plan, are outside the scope of the present study. Hence, a
representative plane frame in the direction of loading is considered
for the seismic analysis. Similar type of building models are
common in published literature (Dolsek and Fajfar 2001; Hashmi
and Madan 2008; Celarec et al. 2012; Fiore et al. 2012; Bolea
2016; Haran et al. 2016; Li et al. 2016) for seismic analysis of
buildings.
The selected building frames are assumed to have four bays with
a uniform bay width of 5 m and a uniform story height of 3.2 m.
© ASCE 04017001-2
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2017, 3(3): 04017001
Regularity index proposed
1 Pns −1 Li 1 Pnb −1 H i
Φs ¼ ,Φ ¼
ns − 1 1 Liþ1 b nb − 1 1 H iþ1
Γ1
η¼
Γ1;ref
P ω
λr ¼ Nk¼1 k;ir
ωk;r
ST SB OGS FC R
Fig. 1. Selected vertically irregular buildings
A bay width of 4–6 m can be considered as a globally common
construction practice. The characteristic strength of concrete and
reinforcement steel are taken as 25 and 415 MPa, respectively.
All of the building frames (except the ground story of OGS and
FC frame) are assumed to have masonry infill wall that are 230-mm
thick. Modulus of elasticity of infill is taken as 2,300 MPa. The
story masses are calculated considering the dead loads and appro-
priate portion of imposed load. The size (breadth and depth) of col-
umns and beams are taken as 400 × 400 mm and 300 × 400 mm,
respectively. The regular (R) building frame is designed as per
IS 456 (Indian Standard 2000) for the highest seismic zone of
India with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.36g as per IS
1893. The design details of the regular building frame are also
available elsewhere (Haran et al. 2016). The frame geometries
of the regular buildings are modified to obtain the irregular build-
ings without modifying the design details. Fig. 1 presents the sche-
matic diagram of four selected irregular building frames: a ST,
building with a single SB, building with a FC, and a building with
an OGS along with a similar R building frame. The details of floor
mass and story stiffness for all the selected buildings are presented
in Table 2.
Structural Modeling
Selected buildings are modeled for elastic free vibration analysis
and nonlinear time history analysis for seismic risk assessments.
The Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(OpenSees) Laboratory tool developed by McKenna et al. (2014)
is used for all of the analyses. A force-based nonlinear beam-
column element that considers the spread of plasticity along the
element is used for modeling the beams and columns for nonlinear
time history analysis. Formulation of the fiber-based element is ex-
plained in Lee and Mosalam (2004). The core concrete is modeled
by considering the effect of confinement due to the special
reinforcement detailing in the beams and columns using the Kent
and Park (1971) model. The cover concrete is modeled as uncon-
fined concrete. Steel-reinforcing bars are modeled using uniaxial
Giuffre-Menegotto-Pinto steel material model with isotropic strain
hardening. More details about reinforcement modelings used in the
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.
 Table 2. Floor Mass and Story Stiffness of Selected Vertically Irregular Frames
ST SB OGS FC R
Mass Stiffness Mass Stiffness Mass Stiffness Mass Stiffness Mass Stiffness
Story/floor (t) (kN=mm) (t) (kN=mm) (t) (kN=mm) (t) (kN=mm) (t) (kN=mm)
1 86.5 270 86.5 270 74.8 81 43.2 16 86.5 270
2 86.5 270 86.5 270 86.5 270 86.5 270 86.5 270
3 64.9 202 86.5 270 86.5 270 86.5 270 86.5 270
4 64.9 202 86.5 270 86.5 270 86.5 270 86.5 270
5 43.2 135 43.2 135 86.5 270 86.5 270 86.5 270
6 43.2 135 43.2 135 86.5 270 86.5 270 86.5 270
7 21.6 67 43.2 135 86.5 270 86.5 270 86.5 270
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Roukela on 09/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

8 21.6 67 43.2 135 86.5 270 86.5 270 86.5 270

present study can be found in Filippou et al. (1983). The in-plane Table 3. Details of Random Variables Considered in the Seismic Risk
stiffness of the floor is modeled using a rigid diaphragm constraint. Assessment
In the present study door or window openings in the infill panels
COV
are ignored under the assumption that the presence of such uniform Material/property Mean (%) Source
openings in the infill walls in all of the stories may not alter the
conclusions of the present study. Accordingly, infill walls are Concrete compressive 30.28 MPa 21.0 Ranganathan (1999)
modeled as equivalent diagonal single struts in both diagonals strength
Yield strength of steel 468.90 MPa 10.0 Ranganathan (1999)
of each bay. Recently published literature (Klingner and Bertero Global damping ratio 5% 40.0 Davenport and
1976; Madan et al. 1997; Negro and Colombo 1997; Crisafulli et al. Carroll (1986)
2000; Dolsek and Fajfar 2001, 2002, 2008; Celarec et al. 2012; Shear strength of 0.2041 MPa 12.0 Agarwal and
Ravichandran and Klinger 2012) present building analysis consid- masonry infill Thakkar (2001)
ering similar models for seismic performance of the infill-framed
buildings. A recent infill wall model proposed by Celarec et al.
(2012) is considered in the present study. The typical quadrilinear
force-displacement relationship of the diagonal struts (in compres- 80
Present Study Experiment
sion) were measured in the axial direction as suggested by Celarec 60
Top displacement (mm)

et al. (2012). 40
In order to model the strength and stiffness degradation of the 20
infill walls in the time history analysis, a pinching material model 0
which is implemented in OpenSees (Ibarra et al. 2005) is used. The -20
same modeling approaches are used in previous literature (Landi -40

et al. 2012; Ravichandran and Klinger 2012). -60

The number of ground motions required for an unbiased esti- -80

mate of the structural response is three or seven as per ASCE/SEI
7-10. However, ATC 58 (ATC 2012) recommends a suite of 11
pairs of ground motions for a reliable estimate of the response
quantities. ASCE/SEI 41 (ASCE 2013) suggests 30 recorded
ground motions to meet the spectral matching criteria for nuclear
power plant structures. Celik and Ellingwood (2010) used 40
ground motions for developing fragility curves. In the present
study, 22 pairs (44 ground motions) collected from Haselton et al.
(2012) are converted to match with the IS 1893 design spectrum
using a computer program, WavGen, which was developed by
Mukherjee and Gupta (2002). These modified earthquake ground
motions are used for the nonlinear dynamic analyses for the esti-
mation of seismic risk.
Uncertainties associated with concrete compressive strength,
yield strength of reinforcing steel, shear strength of infill masonry,
and the global damping ratio are considered in the probabilistic
seismic risk assessment. The mean value and coefficient of varia-
tion (COV) of the normal probability distributions of the previously
mentioned parameters (uncorrelated) are obtained from published
literature and presented in Table 3.
Validation Study
Validation of the modeling approach used in the present study is
conducted by considering experiments on two RC building frames
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (s)
Fig. 2. Comparison of roof displacement time histories for ICON bare
frame
(a bare frame and an infilled frame) that were available in liter-
ature. The pseudodynamic experimental test conducted at the
European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) test lab-
oratory on four-story, three-bay, RC full-scale frames (ICON
frame—bare and infilled) are considered. The building frames
are tested under two subsequent unidirectional pseudodynamic
loadings, first using Acc-475 input motion and then the Acc-
975 input motion. A detailed description of the test specimens,
material properties, and the loading schemes are available in
the SeismoStruct verification report. The nonlinear pseudody-
namic time-history analysis for the record (Acc-475) is conducted
and the top displacement time histories are recorded. Figs. 2 and 3
show the comparisons between the roof displacement histories ob-
tained from the present computational study and from the
experimental study for the bare and infilled frames, respectively.
From these results it can be inferred that the modeling approach
adopted in the present study can yield a reasonably accurate
behavior of a bare frame as well as infilled building frames for
earthquake.

© ASCE 04017001-3 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2017, 3(3): 04017001
 25
Top Displacement (mm)
20 Present Study Experiment
15
10
5
0 X
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
Fig. 3. Comparison of roof displacement history for ICON infilled
frame
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Roukela on 09/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Higher Mode Participation
Participation of a fundamental mode for buildings regular in plan
and elevation is generally considered to be the maximum, hence the
equivalent lateral force method of seismic analysis (developed
based on fundamental mode properties) is recommended in the
design code and is intended for regular buildings only. From a
structural dynamics point of view, it is believed (Chopra 2001;
Chintanapakdee and Chopra 2004; Guler et al. 2008; Hosseini
and Abbasi 2008; Bilgin 2010; Maniatakis et al. 2013; Reyes et al.
2015) that regular buildings display a dominant first mode indi-
cated by a higher first mode participation factor (Γ1 ) and a higher
first mode effective modal mass (M 1 ). It is reported (Sarkar et al.
2010) that as the vertical irregularity of a building increases the first
mode effective mass or first mode participation factors reduces
(thereby the higher mode participation increases). Most of the
international design codes (IS 1893; NZS 1170.5; TERDC
2007; ASCE/SEI 7-10; ICC 2015; etc.) and published literatures
indirectly mention this fact.
A large amount of research effort (Valmundsson and Nau 1997;
Al-Ali and Krawinkler 1998; Chintanapakdee and Chopra 2004;
Pinho and Antoniou 2005; Tremblay and Poncet 2005; Fragiadakis
et al. 2006; Karavasilis et al. 2008; Le-Trung et al. 2012; Pirizadeh
and Shakib 2013) has been spent in last two decades on the
safety of vertically irregular buildings subjected to lateral loads.
These studies have identified the contribution of higher mode in
seismic response as the major difference between vertically irregu-
lar and regular buildings. The majority of the literature including
international design codes relate vertical irregularity with the fol-
lowing three parameters: (1) the changes of structural dimension;
(2) changes in lateral story stiffness and strength; and (3) changes in
story mass along the height of the building. All three of these
aspects directly influence the modal properties of building. The
definitions of vertical irregularity available in published literature
(with respect to first mode properties) also support the contribu-
tion of higher modes in seismic response of vertically irregular
building. This section studies the contribution of higher mode par-
ticipation in the seismic vibration of selected vertically irregular
buildings in terms of mode participation factor and effective modal
mass.
The differential equation governing the elastic response of a
multistory building subjected to horizontal earthquake ground
acceleration, üg ðtÞ, is given by Chopra (2001):
ðmÞðüÞ þ ðcÞðu̇Þ þ ðkÞðuÞ ¼ −ðmÞð1Þüg ðtÞ
where ðuÞ = floor displacement vector relative to the ground with
ðu̇Þ and ðüÞ representing floor velocity and acceleration vectors,
respectively; (m), (c), and (k) = mass, classical damping, and stiff-
ness matrix of the system, respectively. The solution of the previous
differential equation governing the response of a multi degree of
© ASCE
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2017, 3(3): 04017001
freedom (MDOF) system to an earthquake ground motion can
be expressed using the mode superposition method as
N
½uðtÞ ¼ ðφn Þqn ðtÞ ð2Þ
n¼1
where
12 14
ðφn ÞT ðmÞð1Þ
qn ðtÞ ¼ Γn Dn ðtÞ ¼ D ðtÞ ð3Þ
ðφn ÞT ðmÞðφn Þ n
where ðφn Þ = mode shape; qn ðtÞ = modal amplitude; Γn = modal
participation factor of the nth mode; and Dn ðtÞ is governed by the
equation of motion for nth mode equivalent single-degree-of-free-
dom (SDOF) system, with natural period T n and damping ratio ξ n
subjected to support motion üg ðtÞ. Dn can be alternatively obtained
from the elastic spectrum of the earthquake under consideration for
the nth mode period. The displacement contribution of nth mode
can be written as
½un ðtÞ ¼ ðφn Þqn ðtÞ ¼ ðφn ÞΓn Dn ðtÞ ð4Þ
Therefore, the lateral equivalent static force associated with nth
mode response can be written as follows:
½f n ðtÞ ¼ ðkÞðφn ÞΓn Dn ðtÞ ¼ ω2n ðmÞðφn ÞΓn Dn ðtÞ
¼ Γn ðmÞðφn ÞAn ðtÞ ð5Þ
where An ðtÞ = pseudo acceleration response of nth mode SDOF
system subjected to the earthquake under consideration. Therefore,
the base shear response associated with the nth mode response is as
follows:
V B ðtÞ ¼ Γn ðmÞðφn Þð1ÞAn ðtÞ ¼ Mn An ðtÞ ð6Þ
P
ðm φ Þ2
M n ¼ Γn ðmÞðφn Þð1Þ ¼ P i ni2 ð7Þ
mi φni
where Mn = effective modal mass for nth mode vibration. Γn and
M n provide a measure for judging the significance of a vibration
mode. Modes with a relatively high modal participation factor
(Γn ) and high effective masses (M n ) can be readily excited by base
excitation. Conversely, modes with a low participation factor and
effective masses cannot be readily excited in this manner.
Modal analyses of all the selected frames are conducted, and the
first mode participation factors (Γ1 ) are computed as shown in
Fig. 4. The Γ1 of the irregular frames, ST and SB, are found to be
less than that of R. However, Γ1 for OGS and FC are found to be
slightly higher than that of R, which is contrary to the conventional
understanding. Therefore, the first mode participation factor cannot
be considered as an acceptable indicator for quantifying vertical
irregularity.
The effective modal mass for the first mode, M 1 (as a fraction of
total seismic mass), for all the frames are plotted in Fig. 5. The
similar trend, as observed for the Γ1 , is also observed here. M 1 for
ST and SB are found to be lesser than that of R, whereas M1 for FC
and OGS frames are found to be higher than that of R. This means
that the effective modal mass for the fundamental mode also has no
ð1Þ relation with the irregularity of building.
In order to better understand the variation of first mode partici-
pation (Γ1 and M 1 ) in different selected buildings, the quantity
mi ϕ1i [normalized for ðφn ÞT ðmÞðφn Þ ¼ 1] in every story is com-
pared among all the selected frames and presented in Fig. 6.
The profile of mi ϕ1i for the regular and irregular frames are not
consistently different.
04017001-4 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.
 30 Sarkar et al. (2010) Varadharajan et al. (2013)
1.2
25

20 1
Γ1 (KN-m)

15

Regularity Index
0.8
10
0.6
5

0 0.4
ST SB OGS FC R
Selected Frames 0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Roukela on 09/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. First mode participation factors (Γ1 ) of the selected frames 0

ST SB OGS FC R
Selected Frames

120 Fig. 7. Regularity index of selected frames as per previous literature

First Modal Mass Particpation

100

80
for OGS and FC are found to be more than one when calculated
(%)

60
using the procedure given by Sarkar et al. (2010). A regularity in-
40 dex greater than unity implies that the building is having more mass
20 participation in the first mode than the reference regular frame.
Both of these two methods indicate that ST is the most irregular
0
ST SB OGS FC R among the selected buildings. The orders of the frames in terms
Selected Frames of increasing irregularity are FC < OGS < R < SB < ST and
R < SB < FC < OGS < ST according to Sarkar et al. (2010) and
Fig. 5. Comparison of first mode mass participation for selected frames Varadharajan et al. (2013).

9
Probabilistic Seismic Risk Assessment

8 In order to have a rational understanding of how the existing ver-

tical irregularity indicators correlate with their seismic risks, the
7
present study evaluates the seismic risks of selected buildings. This
6 section discusses the methodology used in the present study for
5 seismic risk assessment.
Story

4 ST
Mean Annual Frequency of Exceeding Different Limit
3 SB
State (P PL )
OGS
2 Probabilistic seismic risk assessment provides the likelihood of
FC
1 unacceptable behavior. The likelihood of various levels of future
R intense ground motions at the site are represented in the standard
0 way by a hazard function HðPGAÞ, which gives the annual prob-
0 2 4 6
mi φ1 ability that the random intensity PGA will be equal to or more than
a given intensity level pga. The calculation of probabilities of ex-
Fig. 6. mi ϕ1i profile of selected buildings ceeding any performance level such as collapse prevention or life
safety damage state is achieved in two steps. The first step couples
the first two basic element hazards of PGA and drift demand to
Regularity Index produce a drift hazard curve H D ðdÞ. HD ðdÞ provides the annual
probability that the drift demand (D) exceeds any specified value
Different regularity indices for quantifying the irregularity of build- (d). The second step combines this curve with the third element, the
ings are available in literature (Table 1). Although these approaches drift capacity (C) to produce PPL . PPL is defined as the annual
are developed for setback/stepped buildings, it is informative to probability of the performance level not being met (i.e., the annual
check the validity of these approaches for other vertically irregular probability of collapse or the annual probability of exceeding the
buildings. Karavasilis et al. (2008) is not considered in this study as selected performance level). This accepted simplified method re-
it is based on geometric properties alone, which is only suitable for ported by Cornell et al. (2002) for the development of PPL is
stepped/setback buildings. Regularity indices of selected building adopted in the present study.
frames, namely ST, SB, OGS, FC, and R are calculated using To facilitate the computations, the probability of interest has
Sarkar et al. (2010) and Varadharajan et al. (2013) and presented been expanded by conditioning on all possible levels of the ground
in Fig. 7. As per these two literary works, the regularity index for motion. Using the total probability theorem (Benjamin and Cornell
regular building should be unity. The regularity index decreases 1970) H D ðdÞ can be written as
with the increase in irregularity of the building. Fig. 7 shows that Z
the regularity indices for all of the irregular buildings are less than H D ðdÞ ¼ P½D ≥ djPGA ¼ xjdHðxÞj ð8Þ
unity as per Varadharajan et al. (2013). However, regularity indices

© ASCE 04017001-5 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2017, 3(3): 04017001
 where the derivative of the differential of the site’s PGA hazard parameters is described by Yun and Foutch (2000) and Yun et al.
function dHðxÞ can be obtained from standard hazard curve (2002). With this assumption, the first factor in Eq. (15) becomes
HðPGAÞ. The absolute value of dHðxÞ is used in the Eq. (8) as the  
derivative is negative. Assuming that the hazard curve can be esti- Inðd=ĈÞ
PðC ≤ dÞ ¼ φ ð16Þ
mated in the region of interest, by the form (Cornell et al. 2002) βC
Z
HðPGAÞ ¼ PðPGA ≥ pgaÞ ¼ k0 · ðPGAÞ−K ð9Þ Substituting and carrying out the integration, PPL can be
written as
 2 
Eq. (9) implies that the hazard curve is linear on a log-log plot in 1k 2 2
PPL ¼ HðPGAĈ Þ exp ðβ þ βc Þ ð17Þ
the region of interest. It has been suggested by Cornell et al. (2002) 2 b2 D1PGA
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Roukela on 09/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

that the estimate of the median drift demand (D̂) can be represented
approximately by the form where PGAĈ = peak ground acceleration corresponding to the
median drift capacity
D̂ ¼ aðPGAÞb ð10Þ  1=b
Ĉ
where a and b are the constant coefficients. In the probabilistic rep- PGAĈ ¼ ð18Þ
a
resentation of drift at any given PGA, Shome and Cornell (1999)
suggests that the drift demands are distributed lognormally about
the median with the standard deviation of the natural logarithm
β DjPGA (the dispersion for drift D at a given PGA level). Although Development of Fragility Curves
this log normal assumption of drift demands was originally devel- A fragility function represents the probability of exceedance of the
oped for steel frames, it has been successfully used for RC framed seismic demand (D) beyond a selected performance level for a spe-
buildings by many researchers (Song and Ellingwood 1999; cific ground motion intensity measure (PGA). The fragility curve is
Cornell et al. 2002; Ellingwood et al. 2007; Rizzano and Tolone the cumulative probability distribution that indicates the probability
2009; Rajeev and Tesfamariam 2012; Haran et al. 2016). The three that a system will be damaged to a given damage state or a more
parameters, a, b, and β DjPGA , are obtained by performing a number severe one as a function of ground motion intensity. The fragility
of nonlinear analyses and then conducting a regression analysis of curve can be obtained for each damage state and can be expressed
lnðDÞ on lnðPGAÞ. in closed form as follows:
With the Eq. (10) and the log-normality assumption, it follows 0 1
that the first factor in Eq. (8) can be represented as (Cornell et al.
2002) B lnðD̂=ĈÞ C
PðC − D ≤ 0jPGAÞ ¼ ϕ@qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiA ð19Þ
  2
β DjPGA þ β c þ β m 2 2
lnðd=axb Þ
P½D ≥ djPGA ¼ x ¼ 1 − ϕ ð11Þ
β DjPGA
where D̂ = median of the demand and Ĉ = median of the chosen
in which ϕ is the widely tabulated standardized Gaussian distribu- performance level. Eq. (19) can be rewritten as follows:
tion function. Using this result and Eq. (10), Eq. (8) for the drift 8 9
>
<lnðĈÞ − ln½a · ðPGAÞb > =
hazard curve, in a simplified form, becomes
PðC − D ≤ 0jPGAÞ ¼ 1 − ϕ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð20Þ
  >
: β 2DjPGA þ β 2c þ β 2m > ;
1 k2 2
HD ðdÞ ¼ P½D ≥ d ¼ HðPGAd Þ exp β ð12Þ
2 b2 DjPGA
The dispersion in capacity β c is dependent on the building type
in which PGAd is the peak ground acceleration corresponding to and construction quality. ATC 58 suggests three values for β c as
the drift level d, i.e. 0.10, 0.25, and 0.40 for good, moderate, and poor quality of con-
 1=b struction, respectively. In this study, dispersion in capacity has been
d assumed as 0.25 considering a moderate construction quality.
PGAd ¼ ð13Þ
a

Using the total probability theorem, PPL can be defined as Comparison of Probabilistic Seismic Demand Models
X A set of 44 random values are generated as per the Latin hypercube
PPL ¼ PðC ≤ DÞ ¼ P½C ≤ DjD ¼ di PðD ¼ di Þ ð14Þ
sampling technique using the material properties given in Table 3.
all di
These values are used randomly to create 44 different computa-
Both the demand and capacity that are presumed here are to be tional models for each of the selected frames. The 44 selected
measured in terms of the maximum interstory drift (ISD). The sec- ground motions are scaled linearly from 0.1 to 1.0g, and each
ond factor in Eq. (14) represents the likelihood of a given displace- of the 44 computational models is analyzed for a particular earth-
ment demand level, PðD ¼ dÞ, which can be determined from the quake (randomly selected) with a particular PGA. A total of 44
drift hazard curve derived in Eq. (8). Eq. (14) can be represented in nonlinear time history analyses are performed for each of the se-
continuous form as lected buildings and the maximum ISD for each frame are obtained.
Z The ISD along with the corresponding PGAs are plotted in a log-
arithmic graph as shown in Fig. 8. Each point in the plot represents
PPL ¼ PðC ≤ dÞjdH D ðdÞj ð15Þ the PGA values and the corresponding maximum ISD. A power law
[Eq. (10)] relationship for each frames is fitted using regression
The drift capacity C is assumed to have a median value Ĉ and to analysis, which represents the probabilistic seismic demand model
be log-normally distributed with dispersion β C . Estimation of these (PSDM) for the corresponding frames.

© ASCE 04017001-6 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2017, 3(3): 04017001
 10 1
ST

Probability of Exceedance
ST
SB 0.8
OGS SB
1
Interstory drift, %

FC 0.6
R OGS

ST-fitted 0.4 FC
SB-Fitted
0.1
OGS-Fitted 0.2 R
FC-Fitted
R-Fitted 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Roukela on 09/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.01 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.10 1.00 PGA, g
PGA, g

Fig. 8. PSDMs for all frames considered Fig. 10. Fragility curves at LS performance level

1
Table 4. PSDM Model and Dispersions of EDP for Selected Building

Probability of Exceedance
Frame PSDM R2 β DjPGA 0.8 ST

ST 3.78ðPGAÞ1.6109 0.814 0.4826 SB

SB 5.14ðPGAÞ1.6554 0.785 0.5421 0.6
OGS 4.60ðPGAÞ1.1152 0.756 0.3968 OGS
FC 6.12ðPGAÞ0.9981 0.6197 0.4905 0.4 FC
R 5.47ðPGAÞ1.7297 0.777 0.5808
0.2 R

0
1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Probability of Exceedance

PGA, g
0.8 ST

SB
Fig. 11. Fragility curves at CP performance level
0.6
OGS
0.4 FC
increasing exceedance probabilities is ST < SB ¼ R < OGS <
0.2
R FC, which is not consistent with order of their first mode partici-
pation factors and first mode mass participation (Figs. 4 and 5).
0 Therefore, any approaches to quantify the vertical irregularities
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 in terms of their first mode properties is inappropriate.
PGA, g

Fig. 9. Fragility curves at IO performance level Comparison of Drift Hazard Curves

The drift hazard curves for the selected buildings are developed
considering the seismic hazard curve of Guwahati, India (available
in Nath and Thingbaijam 2012) as given in Fig. 12. In order to fit
The regression coefficients, a and b, are found out for each
this seismic hazard curve in to the closed form equation [Eq. (9)],
frame and reported in Table 4. The PSDM provides the most likely
the hazard curve is plotted in a log-log format as shown in Fig. 13
value of ISD (%) in the event of an earthquake of certain PGA (up
and parameters ko and k are found out. The drift hazard curves for
to 1g) in each frame. Depending on the PSDM, the vulnerability of
all the selected frames are computed (as per the procedure previ-
the particular frame can be identified. Fig. 8 demonstrates that FC
ously discussed) and shown in Fig. 14. The order of frames in terms
and OGS frames have higher drift demands (ISD) compared to a R
of increasing drift hazard is ST < SB < R < OGS < FC. The rela-
frame, whereas the ST frame has the lowest drift demand for any
tive mean annual rate of exceedance of the drift for the selected
given intensity measure (PGA). SB and R frames are found to have
frames are found to be similar to their fragility curves. The vulner-
approximately equal drift demand.
ability of these frames are not in the order of their first mode
properties.
Comparison of Fragility Curves
In order to study the performance of selected vertically irregular Comparison of Mean Annual Probability of
Exceedance (P PL )
buildings, the fragility curves are developed for all the frames for
each performance limit states (IO, LS, and CP as per ASCE/SEI 41) The values of annual probability of collapse or the annual proba-
as shown in Figs. 9–11. Fragility curves for the selected building bility of exceeding the selected performance level (PPL ) are
frames support the conclusions drawn from PSDMs. The fragility calculated for three selected performance levels (IO, LS, and
curves demonstrate that FC has the highest and ST has the lowest CP) as presented in Table 5. PPL of FC and OGS frames are found
value of exceedance probabilities. The fragility curves for R and SB to be higher as compared to other frames, while that of SB and ST
are found to be identical. The order of the frames in terms of frames are lesser than the R building for all the performance

© ASCE 04017001-7 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2017, 3(3): 04017001
 Table 5. Annual Probability of Collapse (PPL ) for Selected Buildings

Annual mean rate of exceedance

0.1
Annual probability of
collapse, PPL (×10−3 )
Designation
of frame Γ1 (kN · m) IO LS CP

H (PGA)
0.01
ST 18.16 4.50 2.07 0.95
SB 20.18 6.13 2.89 1.37
OGS 25.41 13.30 4.34 1.41
0.001 FC 25.82 36.70 10.50 2.99
R 24.34 6.18 3.00 1.46
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Roukela on 09/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.0001
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
PGA, g Table 6. Comparison of Existing Regularity Index with Associated
Probability of Failure
Fig. 12. Hazard curve for Guwahati region (adapted from Nath and
Existing regularity Probability of failure,
Thingbaijam 2012)
index PPL (×10−3 )
Frame Sarkar et al. Varadharajan
identifier (2010) et al. (2013) IO LS CP
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 ST 0.746 0.967 4.50 2.07 0.95
0 SB 0.829 0.984 6.13 2.89 1.37
OGS 1.044 0.971 13.30 4.34 1.41
FC 1.061 0.980 36.70 10.50 2.99
-2 R 1.000 1.000 6.18 3.00 1.46
ln H(PGA)

-4

Correlation between Regularity Indices and Probability

-6 of Failure
Table 6 compares the regularity index calculated as per the existing
-8 literature and corresponding probabilities of failure for all the
y = -1.8037x - 7.0766
frames. As per the existing irregularity indicators, the ST frame
-10
appears to be most irregular. However, the present study shows that
ln (PGA) it possesses the lowest seismic risk. Similarly, the existing pro-
cedure may qualify OGS and FC as the least irregular, but the seis-
Fig. 13. Evaluations of k0 and k parameters mic risks associated with these buildings are found to be the highest
among the selected buildings.
These conclusions indicate the inadequacy of the existing meth-
odologies to quantify the vertical irregularities in buildings. This
1 may be due to the lack of theoretical basis behind the formulation
Annual mean rate of exceedance

of these methodologies.
0.1 ST
SB
HD (d)

0.01 OGS Conclusions

0.001
0.0001
0 1
Fig. 14. Drift hazard curve for the selected buildings
levels. The order of the frames in terms of increasing PPL is
ST < SB < R < OGS < FC. Both story stiffness and floor mass
reduces along the height for ST and SB frames when compared
to a similar R building frame. Lesser stiffness induces higher
story displacement whereas lesser mass attracts lesser force and
thereby reduces the story displacement of such buildings. Lesser
stiffness in the upper stories has lesser negative impact than the
positive impact of lesser mass in the upper stories. This may per-
haps make ST and SB frames perform better than the similar regular
building.
FC
R
Regular buildings are commonly considered to have high first
mode participation. As the irregularity increases the contribution
of first mode decreases. Accordingly, many previous studies have
2 3 4 5 proposed methodologies to quantify the vertical irregularity in the
ISD (%) buildings in terms of first mode properties. This paper reviewed the
existing regularity indices on the basis of the seismic risk of se-
lected buildings using a performance-based framework and the
salient conclusions of this study are as follows:
• The present study shows that the first mode participation factor
(Γ1 ) and effective modal mass (M 1 ) of the irregular frames, ST
and SB, are lesser than that of R frame. However, Γ1 and M 1 for
OGS and FC frames are found to be higher than that of R, which
is contrary to the conventional understanding.
• As per both the existing irregularity indicators (Sarkar et al.
2010; Varadharajan et al. 2013), the ST frame is found to be the
most irregular, which implies that the ST frame must be the most
vulnerable. However, the seismic risk assessment shows that ST
is the least vulnerable frame. Similarly (with regard to FC
frame), the existing irregularity indicator (Sarkar et al. 2010)

© ASCE 04017001-8 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2017, 3(3): 04017001
 classifies this frame as the least irregular frame (expected to be
least vulnerable). However, the seismic risk assessment shows
that it is the most vulnerable type of frame. The same trend is
also depicted in the case of OGS and SB frames. Seismic per-
formance of selected vertically irregular buildings in terms of
fragility curve, annual probability of collapse, and drift hazard
curve show that there is hardly any correlation between seismic
risk and its first mode properties. The irregularity in a building
quantified based on first mode properties by existing indicators
does not reflect their seismic risk appropriately. Therefore, it can
be concluded from these results that the existing irregularity
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Roukela on 09/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
indicators based on first mode properties are inadequate for
the quantification of vertical irregularity.
• Fragility, annual probability of collapse (PPL ), and drift hazard
curves for the selected buildings indicate that the seismic per-
formance of ST and SB building frames are better than even a R
frame. Therefore, ST and SB buildings under the category of
vertical geometric irregularity needs to be investigated in detail
to validate the special design requirements recommended by
design codes.
References
SeismoStruct Version 6.0 [Computer software]. Seismosoft, Pavia, Italy.
Agarwal, P., and Thakkar, S. K. (2001). “A comparative study of brick
masonry house model under quasi-static and dynamic loading.”
J. Earthquake Technol., 38(2–4), 103–122.
Al-Ali, A. A. K., and Krawinkler, H. (1998). “Effects of vertical irregular-
ities on seismic behavior of building structures.” Rep. No. 130,
John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford Univ.,
Stanford, CA.
ASCE. (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.”
ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.
ASCE. (2013). “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings.”
ASCE/SEI 41-13, Reston, VA.
ATC (Applied Technology Council). (2012). “Seismic performance assess-
ment of buildings. Volume 1—Methodology.” FEMA P-58-1, FEMA,
Washington, DC.
Benjamin, J. R., and Cornell, C. A. (1970). Probability, statistics and
decision for civil engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bilgin, H. (2010). “Seismic performance evaluation of an existing school
building in Turkey.” 9th Int. Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering,
Karadeniz Technical Univ., Trabzon, Turkey.
Bolea, O. (2016). “The seismic behavior of reinforced concrete frame struc-
tures with infill masonry in the Bucharest area.” Energy Proc., 85,
60–76.
Celarec, D., Ricci, P., and Dolsek, M. (2012). “The sensitivity of seismic
response parameters to the uncertain modeling variables of masonry-
infilled reinforced concrete frames.” Eng. Struct., 35, 165–177.
Celik, O., and Ellingwood, B. R. (2010). “Seismic fragilities for non-ductile
reinforced concrete frames—Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertain-
ties.” Struct. Saf., 32(1), 1–12.
Chintanapakdee, C., and Chopra, A. K. (2004). “Seismic response of
vertically irregular frames: Response history and modal pushover
analyses.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:8
(1177), 1177–1185.
Chopra, A. K. (2001). Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to
earthquake engineering, 2nd Ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Cornell, C. A., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R. O., and Foutch, D. A. (2002).
“The probabilistic basis for the 2000 SAC/FEMA steel moment frame
guidelines.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4
(526), 526–533.
Crisafulli, F. J., Carr, A. J., and Park, R. (2000). “Analytical modelling of
infilled frame structures—A general overview.” Bull N. Z. Soc. Earth-
quake Eng., 33(1), 30–47.
Davenport, A. G., and Carroll, H. (1986). “Damping in tall buildings: Its
variability and treatment in design.” ASCE, Reston, VA.
© ASCE 04017001-9
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2017, 3(3): 04017001
De Stefano, M., and Pintucchi, B. (2008). “A review of research on seismic
behavior of irregular building structures since 2002.” Bull. Earthquake
Eng., 6(2), 285–308.
Dolsek, M., and Fajfar, P. (2001). “Soft story effects in uniformly infilled
reinforced concrete frames.” J. Earthquake Eng., 5(1), 1–12.
Dolsek, M., and Fajfar, P. (2002). “Mathematical modeling of an infilled
RC frame structure based on the results of pseudo-dynamic tests.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(6), 1215–1230.
Dolsek, M., and Fajfar, P. (2008). “The effect of masonry infills on the
seismic response of a four-storey reinforced concrete frame—A deter-
ministic assessment.” Eng. Struct., 30(7), 1991–2001.
Ellingwood, B. R., Celik, O. C., and Kinali, K. (2007). “Fragility assess-
ment of building structural systems in mid-America.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn., 36(13), 1935–1952.
Filippou, F. C., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V. (1983). “Effects of bond
deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints.”
Rep. No. EERC 83-19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ.
of California, Berkeley, CA.
Fiore, A., Netti, A., and Monaco, P. (2012). “The influence of masonry
infill on the seismic behavior of RC frame buildings.” Eng. Struct.,
44, 133–145.
Fragiadakis, M., Vamvatsikos, D., and Papadrakakis, M. (2006). “Evalu-
ation of the influence of vertical irregularities on the seismic perfor-
mance of a nine-story steel frame.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
35(12), 1489–1509.
Guler, K., Guler, M. G., Taskin, B., and Altan, M. (2008). “Performance
evaluation of a vertically irregular RC building.” 14th World Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing.
Haran Pragalath, D. C., Bhosale, A., Davis, R., and Sarkar, P. (2016).
“Multiplication factors for open ground storey buildings—A reliability
based evaluation.” Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vibr., 15(2), 283–295.
Haselton, C. B., Whittaker, A. S., Hortacsu, A., Baker, J. W., Bray, J., and
Grant, D. N. (2012). “Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions
for performing response-history analyses.” Proc., 15th World Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal.
Hashmi, A. K., and Madan, A. (2008). “Damage forecast for masonry
infilled reinforced concrete framed buildings subjected to earthquakes
in India.” Curr. Sci., 94(1), 61–73.
Hosseini, M., and Abbasi, L. (2008). “Proposing input-dependent mode
contribution factors for simplified seismic response analysis of building
systems.” 14th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing.
Ibarra, L. F., Medina, A., and Krawinkler, H. (2005). “Hysteretic models
that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn., 34(12), 1489–1511.
Indian Standard. (2000). “Indian standard for plain and reinforced concrete
code of practice.” IS 456-00, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India.
Indian Standard. (2002). “Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant
design of structures.” IS 1893-02, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, India.
International Code Council. (2015). “International building code.”
Washington, DC.
Karavasilis, T. L., Bazeos, N., and Beskos, D. E. (2008). “Estimation of
seismic inelastic deformation demands in plane steel MRF with vertical
mass irregularities.” Eng. Struct., 30(11), 3265–3275.
Kent, D. C., and Park, R. (1971). “Flexural mechanics with confined con-
crete.” J. Struct. Div., 97(ST7), 1969–1990.
Klingner, R. E., and Bertero, V. V. (1976). “Infilled frames in earthquake
resistant construction.” Rep. No. EERC 76-32, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Landi, L., Diotallevi, P. P., and Tardini, A. (2012). “Calibration of an equiv-
alent strut model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of infilled RC
frames.” 15th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa,
Portugal.
Lee, T. H., and Mosalam, K. M. (2004). “Probabilistic fiber element
modeling of reinforced concrete structures.” Comput. Struct., 82(27),
2285–2299.
Le-Trung, K., Lee, K., Lee, J., and Lee, D. H. (2012). “Evaluation of seis-
mic behavior of steel special moment frame buildings with vertical
irregularities.” Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build., 21(3), 215–232.
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.
 Li, S., Shan, S., Zhai, C., and Xie, L. (2016). “Experimental and numerical
study on progressive collapse process of RC frames with full-height
infill walls.” Eng. Fail. Anal., 59, 57–68.
Madan, A., Reinhorn, A. M., Mandar, J. B., and Valles, R. E. (1997). “
Modeling of masonry infill panels for structural analysis.” J. Struct.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:10(1295), 1295–1302.
Maniatakis, C. A., Psycharis, I. N., and Spyrakos, C. C. (2013). “Effect of
higher modes on the seismic response and design of moment-resisting
RC frame structures.” Eng. Struct., 56, 417–430.
McKenna, F., McGann, C., Arduino, P., and Harmon, J. A. (2014). “OpenSees
laboratory.” 〈https://nees.org/resources/openseeslab〉 (Jan. 15, 2016).
Mukherjee, S., and Gupta, V. K. (2002). “Wavelet-based generation of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Roukela on 09/14/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
spectrum compatible time histories.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 22(9),
799–804.
Nath, S. K., and Thingbaijam, K. K. S. (2012). “Probabilistic seismic
hazard assessment of India.” Seismol. Res. Lett., 83(1), 135–149.
Negro, P., and Colombo, A. (1997). “Irregularities induced by non-
structural masonry panels in framed buildings.” Eng. Struct., 19(7),
576–585.
New Zealand Standard. (2004). “Structural design actions. Part 5: Earth-
quake actions—New Zealand.” NZS 1170.5, Wellington, New Zealand.
OpenSees [Computer software]. UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Pinho, R., and Antoniou, S. (2005). “A displacement-based adaptive push-
over algorithm for assessment of vertically irregular frames.” 4th Euro-
pean Workshop on the Seismic Behavior of Irregular and Complex
Structures, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Pirizadeh, M., and Shakib, H. (2013). “Probabilistic seismic performance
evaluation of non-geometric vertically irregular steel buildings.” J. Constr.
Steel Res., 82, 88–98.
Rajeev, P., and Tesfamariam, S. (2012). “Seismic fragilities for reinforced
concrete buildings with consideration of irregularities.” Struct. Saf.,
39, 1–13.
Ranganathan, R. (1999). Structural reliability analysis and design, Jaico
Publishing House, Mumbai, India.
Ravichandran, S. S., and Klinger, E. R. (2012). “Seismic design factors for
steel moment frames with masonry infills.” Earthquake Spectra, 28(3),
1189–1204.
© ASCE
View publication stats ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2017, 3(3): 04017001
Reyes, J. C., Andrea, C. R., Kalkan, E., and Arango, M. C. (2015).
“Extending modal pushover-based scaling procedure for nonlinear re-
sponse history analysis of multi-story unsymmetric-plan buildings.”
Eng. Struct., 88, 125–137.
Rizzano, G., and Tolone, I. (2009). “Seismic assessment of existing RC
frames: Probabilistic approach.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(2009)135:7(836), 836–852.
Sarkar, P., Meher, P., and Menon, D. (2010). “Vertical geometric irregu-
larity in stepped building frames.” Eng. Struct., 32(8), 2175–2182.
Shome, N., and Cornell, C. A. (1999). “Probabilistic seismic demand
analysis of nonlinear structures.” Rep. No. RMS-35, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
Song, J., and Ellingwood, B. R. (1999). “Seismic reliability of special mo-
ment steel frames with welded connections: II.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:4(372), 372–384.
TERDC (Turkish Earthquake Resistant Design Code). (2007). “Specifica-
tion for buildings to be built in earthquake areas.” Ministry of Public
Works and Settlement of Republic of Turkey, Official Gazette, Istanbul,
Turkey.
Tremblay, R., and Poncet, L. (2005). “Seismic performance of concentri-
cally braced steel frames in multistory buildings with mass irregularity.”
J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:9(1363), 1363–
1375.
Valmundsson, E. V., and Nau, J. M. (1997). “Seismic response of building
frames with vertical structural irregularities.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:1(30), 30–41.
Varadharajan, S., Sehgal, V. K., and Babita, S. (2013). “Determination of
inelastic seismic demands of RC moment resisting setback frames.”
Archiv. Civ. Mech. Eng., 13(3), 370–393.
Yun, S. Y., and Foutch, D. A. (2000). “Performance prediction and evalu-
ation of low ductility steel moment frames for seismic loads.” SAC
Background Rep. No. SAC/BD-00/26, SAC Joint Venture, Richmond,
CA.
Yun, S. Y., Hamburger, R. O., Cornell, C. A., and Foutch, D. A. (2002).
“Seismic performance evaluation for steel moment frames.” J. Struct.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(534), 534–545.
04017001-10 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.