Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Shaking table tests and seismic assessment of a full-scale precast concrete

sandwich wall panel structure with bolt connections
Jia-Xuan He a, Zhao-Dong Xu a, *, Lian-Yu Zhang b, Zhi-Hua Lin b, Zhong-Wei Hu a,
Qiang-Qiang Li a, Yao-Rong Dong c
a
China-Pakistan Belt and Road Joint Laboratory on Smart Disaster Prevention of Major Infrastructures, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
b
Shandong Hongyi Prefabricated Building Technology Co., LTD, Linyi 276023, China
c
Key Lab of Structural Engineering and Earthquake Resistance, Ministry of Education, Xi’an 710055, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A novel, light-weight, sustainable, repairable and cost-effective precast concrete sandwich wall panel structure
Full-scale shaking table test system is proposed in this paper, including the dry bolt connections and the precast concrete sandwich panels. To
Precast concrete sandwich wall panel structure evaluate the seismic performance of precast structure system, a sequence of shaking table tests is carried on the
Dry bolt connection
full-scale precast concrete sandwich wall panel structure, and the dynamic characteristics, damage pattern,
Seismic fragility analysis
dynamic responses and seismic fragility are investigated and analyzed by the test results under service level
earthquake, design based earthquake, and maximum considered earthquake. The seismic fragility curves and
failure probability curves are analyzed by the shaking table test results, which quantitatively describes the
seismic performance expressed by probability. The results show that the precast concrete sandwich wall panel
structure performs high lateral stiffness, large safety margins and high strength reserves. The precast concrete
sandwich wall panel structure system presents a good seismic performance. The damage of the structure is slight
under maximum considered earthquakes, and the structure has begun to enter the plastic stage. The light-weight
characteristic reduces the dynamic responses, and the mild sliding between precast components consumes a
fraction of seismic energy.

1. Introduction and population enhancement, there are plenty of residential buildings in

Precast concrete buildings offer fast construction schedules, efficient
mechanization levels, and low energy construction processes, which can
realize rapid urbanization and meet the requirement of dwelling units
for a growing population [1–4]. Precast technology is an industrial
construction technology, in which the standardized precast concrete
components are produced in factories, transported to the construction
site and assembled by efficient and reliable connections. The conven­
tional cast-in-site construction is laborious and complex, and the con­
struction quality is intensely challenging to control. In contrast, the
precast construction reduces construction costs, improves construction
quality, enhances safety, speeds up construction and erection, and mit­
igates the impact of severe weather on the continuous construction. In
recent decades, precast buildings have been widespread in various
countries and regions worldwide, including the earthquake-prone areas,
such as Europe, America, Japan, New Zealand and China [5–8].
Owing to rapid economic development, urbanization acceleration
urgent need of establishment or replacement, whether in cities or rural
areas. Most of original rural buildings are unreinforced masonry struc­
tures and brick-concrete structures, without considering the seismic
design under self-built condition, and these buildings are at great risk of
extensive damage during natural disasters [9–16]. Among the various
structure systems, the precast concrete wall panel structure system is
well suitable for low-rise residential buildings in rural areas worldwide.
In particular, the precast concrete sandwich panels (PCSPs) offer better
insulation and lighter mass, which are mostly applied in low-rise resi­
dential and industrial buildings typically and increasingly in middle and
high-rise residential buildings. The precast concrete wall panel structure
system and the precast concrete sandwich panel are shown in Fig. 1 and
Fig. 2.
The PCSPs consist of two outer concrete layers (wythes) and a middle
layer of insulation material. The concrete layers are united by the shear
connectors to compose a whole sandwich configuration, which ensures
the structural performance of the panel. The PCSPs can prevent the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhdxu@163.com (Z.-D. Xu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115543
Received 6 July 2022; Received in revised form 10 November 2022; Accepted 25 December 2022
Available online 3 January 2023
0141-0296/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.-X. He et al.
Fig. 1. Precast concrete wall panel structure system.
Fig. 2. Precast concrete sandwich panel.
thermal bridges of concrete members to reduce the impact of internal
and external temperature gradients on buildings [17–19]. The tradi­
tional shear connectors of PCSPs are commonly made of plain carbon
steel, which involves different forms, such as bent bars, continuous
trusses, and concentrated ties. Considering the strength, stiffness and
connection form of shear connectors, the composite levels of the PCSPs
are divided into three categories: non-composite action, partial com­
posite action, and full composite action. The non-composite PCSPs can
be installed as building insulation facades, in which two concrete layers
on both sides resist bending moments independently. The full-composite
PCSPs can potentially be utilized as load-bearing members transferring
the vertical and lateral force in middle and low-rise buildings, in which
two concrete layers resist the bending moment as a whole. The com­
posite action of the partial composite PCSPs lies somewhere in between.
Over the years, many studies have been conducted to verify the
lateral bending capacity and the vertical compressive capacity of the
PCSPs installed as walls and floors/roofs. Benayoune et al. [20,21]
investigated the load-bearing capacity, load–deflection profiles,
cracking patterns and failure mode of PCSPs subjected to axial and
eccentric load. The results indicate that the performance of all panels
exhibited the almost full-composite action until significant damage
occurred. The strength of the panels decreased nonlinearly with the
increase of slenderness ratio. The existing design approaches of solid
walls are conservative and can be safely used in the design of PCSPs,
which are even underestimated the ultimate strength under eccentric
load. Amran et al. [22,23] studied the flexural performance of the PCSPs
under lateral load and compared that with solid panels. The failure and
crack patterns of the PCSPs are similar to solid panels, especially when
the concrete layers are fully composited. The initial crack occurred at
about half of the ultimate load, and the panels, which have good
2
Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543
ductility and large deformation when destroyed, show full composite at
elastic stage and partial composite at ultimate stage. Hopkins et al. [24]
conducted a dynamic analysis of the PCSPs and solid concrete panels
and concluded that the PCSPs have great potential as the major com­
ponents of conventional and blast-resistant structures. Despite the light
weight, the PCSPs perform better blasting attenuation and damage
control effect than solid panels when subjected to the blast load.
The failure mode of precast structures is distinguished from that of
cast-in-site structures, which is mainly related to the interaction of
adjacent components at the joints. When subjected to intense horizontal
seismic loads, the connections at the wall-to-wall and wall-to-floor joints
are critical. Some studies have shown that the dry bolts connections can
provide precast concrete structures with sufficient strength and stiffness
to maintain the structural integrity. Malla et al. [25] found that the
stiffness, yield load and ultimate load of the joints increase linearly with
the increase number of bolts, and the diameter and strength of bolts have
a prominent effect on the cyclic behavior of joints. Guo et al. [26]
conducted the shaking table test on a precast wall panel structure with
bolt connections, and the connections performed reliable which pre­
ceded the failure of components. The high-strength bolt connections are
decisive for the initial stiffness of the structure and affect the dynamic
response significantly. Dal Lago et al. [27] proposed a novel bolt
connection, which transforms the shear behavior of the connections to
the bending behavior of elementary beams, and verified the energy
dissipation of the device.
There is a particular lack of the experiment addressing the behavior
and failure mechanism of large-scale and multi-story precast concrete
structures subjected to realistic dynamic load. It is significant because
the behavior of structures may be sensitive to the scale, loading rate, as
well as the distribution of lateral seismic load. This paper presents a new
type of dry connection with high strength bolts, steel plate and enclosed
angle steel frame, and introduced a precast concrete sandwich wall
structure (PCSWPS) with the bolt connections. The PCSWPS is a type of
prefabricated structure with the PCSPs as primary bearing components,
such as floor slabs, wall panels and roof slabs. Comparing to traditional
precast structure systems, the PCSWPS system more fulfils the concept of
green building, energy efficiency, material conservation and sustainable
development, and a higher level of standardization and modularization
improve the assembly efficiency of the structure. To investigate the
seismic performance of the PCSWPS, the shaking table tests of a full-
scale two-story model are conducted under service level earthquake
(SLE), design based earthquake (DBE), and maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) in the high seismic intensity areas. The seismic per­
formance of the PCSWPS is evaluated according to the dynamic response
and damage pattern of the structure, and the reliability of the bolt
connection under seismic load are examined, to provide references for
the innovation and development of precast concrete structure system on
residential buildings.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test model
The test model of a full-scale two-story PCSWPS is box-type, as
shown in Fig. 3, representing a residential building in a suburb of Linyi,
Shandong, an earthquake-prone area in China. The total height is 6.2 m,
the length is 3.8 m, and the width is 3 m. Based on Chinese technical
specification for precast concrete structures (JGJ 1–2014) [28], the test
model is equivalent to the cast-in-place structure, and the re­
inforcements of components are designed regarding as an integral
structure. The number of high-strength bolts for each horizontal and
vertical connections are designed by Chinese standard for design of steel
structures (GB 50017–2017) [29]. The model consists of four floor slabs,
two roof slabs and eight wall panels, all of which are the PCSPs with a
thickness of 200 mm, as shown in Fig. 4 (a).
There are one door opening and three window openings on the east
J.-X. He et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543

Fig. 3. A full-scale two-story PCSWPS.
and west elevations of the test model. The size of the door opening is 2.1
m by 0.9 m, and the size of the window opening is 1.2 m by 1.2 m. The
thickness of concrete layers is 40 mm, and the thickness of the insulation
layer (sprayed hard expandable polyurethane) is 120 mm. Composite
material are considered as the ideal material for shear connectors,
because of the high strength, low thermal conductivity, good elasticity
and toughness. The concrete layers of the roof slabs and wall panels are
connected by glass fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP) shear connectors,
which are manufactured by 8 mm diameter saturated epoxy resin
threaded GFRP and steel sleeves. The concrete layers of floor slabs are
connected by continuous trusses, which are made of the bent steel bars,
as plotted in Fig. 4 (b).
The 40 × 40 × 4 mm size angle steels are welded together and
embedded in concrete as the enclosed frame of the PCSPs, which are also
welded to the reinforcements or shear connectors, as plotted in Fig. 4 (c).
The bolt holes for the dry connections have been reserved on the
enclosed angle steel frame. The vertical connection at wall-to wall joints
and the horizontal connection at wall-to-floor joints are composed of
Q235B galvanized steel plate, grade 8.8 high strength bolts and Q235B
enclosed angle steel frame (Q235B steel represents the semi-killed steel
with the nominal yield strength of 235 MPa). Viewing in Fig. 4, the
connections are divided into L type, I type and Angle type according to
the shape. The groove shaped connection areas are prepared during

Fig. 4. Schematic view of the test model and details of dry connections and shear connectors.

3
J.-X. He et al.
concrete pouring, which can be protected by filling cement mortar or
spray anticorrosive paint after the assembling of structure, but the
original appearance is retained for observed in the shaking table tests.
The dry connection is the essential part of precast structures. The
conventional approaches of the dry blot connection are drilling holes in
concrete directly or embedding steel plates with bolt holes [30–34]. The
local stress on the concrete holes can easily lead to the damage of con­
crete under seismic action. The embedded steel plates are difficult to
locate precisely during the pouring process, and many problems may
occur during long-term use, for instance, the concrete cracks around the
embedded steel plates, the bare steel plates and anchored steel bars rust.
The two conventional approaches are inappropriate for the PCSWPS,
because the concrete layers of the PCSPs are too thin, which cannot
afford the local stress and the large area steel plates. Therefore, we
proposed the novel dry bolt connection for the PCSWPS, which is also
applicable to other precast structures. The connection is compact and
ingenious, which is convenient to be located, fixed and installed. The
enclosed angle steel frame is anchored with steel bar mesh, and the
position of blot holes is readily to confirm since the frame is stable and
hard to move during concrete pouring. The enclosed angle steel frame
can provide enough stiffness for the connection and prevent local con­
crete damage.
The C30 concrete with 30 MPa nominal compressive strength and
HRB400 steel bars with 400 MPa nominal yield strength are used for the
PCSPs. The average compressive cube strength of concrete, 32.1 MPa, is
measured using compression test on nine concrete cubes, and the
measured yield strength and ultimate strength for the HRB400 steel bars
are 435 MPa and 614 MPa, measured by tensile test on six steel bars. The
details of enclosed angle steel frame and reinforcements are displayed in
Fig. 5 and Table 1.
The shaking table has dimensions of 4.0 × 6.0 m in length by width.
The maximum horizontal acceleration of the shaking table is 1.5 g in the
frequency range of 0.1 to 50 Hz, considering the condition of full load 25
tons. The precast components are assembled directly on the shaking
table, and the test model is fixed to the shaking table by rigid connecting
steel plates. As shown in Fig. 6, the onsite assemble construction
sequence is as follows: (a) the rigid connecting steel plates are set and
fixed on the shaking table, providing the fixed base condition; (b) the
first floor slabs are installed on the shaking table by lifting appliances,
then the wall panels are placed and supported on the first floor slabs by
temporary adjustable diagonal braces to ensure verticality and stability,
and the bolt connections between the floor slabs and wall panels are
fixed by electric wrench; (c) the remaining components are assembled
from the bottom up by the same way as above; (d) considering 50 % live
load on the floor, 1.029 tons mass blocks are arranged on the second
floor slabs, and 0.257 tons mass blocks are applied on the roof slabs.
Four accelerometers and ten displacement transducers (laser
displacement sensors) are installed to measure the responses of accel­
erations and displacements, with the sampling frequency of 512 Hz. The
strain gauges are installed on the steel plates of dry connections to reflect
the local response, with the sampling frequency of 4 Hz. The layout of
the test setup is shown in Fig. 7. The range of Laser displacement sensors
is 1000 to 3500 mm, and the frequency up to 3000 Hz. The acceler­
ometer and displacement transducer installed on the shaking table are
mainly used to verify the actual output ground motion of the shaking
table system. Considering that the damage of dry connections may cause
the sliding during the tests, the displacement sensors are added at the
top and bottom of the wall panels. Since the first floor of the structure
has a door opening on one side and a window opening on the other side,
the structure may produce torsional effect, so the displacement sensors
are installed on both sides. The strain gauges are arranged where the
connection response is likely to be most intense, and the position of
representative data analyzed in the article are sketched in Fig. 7.
4
Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543
2.2. Testing protocol
According to the site situation and fortification intensity, one arti­
ficial ground motion and two natural seismic records, El Centro and Taft
seismic waves, are chosen to evaluate the seismic performance at
various seismic intensity levels. The artificial ground motion is gener­
ated by a nonstationary Kanai-Tajimi model and wavelet transform [35].
The seismic predominance periods of the two natural seismic records are
similar to the site characteristic period, which is suitable for the second-
type site in Chinese Code for seismic design of buildings (GB50011-
2010) [36]. The horizontal ground acceleration time history data are
scaled to reach given amplitude values of peak ground acceleration
(PGA), including 0.07 g, 0.2 g and 0.4 g. The PGA of seismic input
excitation, 0.07 g, 0.2 g, and 0.4 g, represent the seismic intensity level
of SLE, DBE and MCE.
The response spectrums of the selected excitations with the damping
ratio of 5 % are analyzed and compared with the designed spectrum
under SLE, as shown in Fig. 8. During the loading under the same PGA,
the order of input seismic excitations is determined: Taft - El Centro -
Artificial, which depends on the value of the acceleration response
spectrums at the fundamental period of the structure. To identify the
modal parameters and damage state, a low-amplitude white noise
excitation with the PGA of 0.07 g is input before and after each different
intensity seismic excitations. The loading cases of the shaking table tests
are illustrated in Table 2.
3. Test results and discussions
3.1. Damage pattern
During the tests, the movement of the structure was the overall
translation, no torsion effect was found, and no sound of structural
failure was heard. After SLE, no discernible damage to the main com­
ponents of the structure was observed. Under DBE, several micro-cracks
appeared in the structure. Through observation during all loading, the
unexpected finding is that there were only a few relatively minor cracks
on the structure. In the vibration direction of the shaking table, the local
concrete was crushed slightly and some small cracks were generated at
the end of the precast wall, and minor cracks around the bolt connec­
tions were observed, as shown in Fig. 9 (a) - (d). As illustrated in Fig. 9
(e), an oblique crack was observed near the window opening of the
precast wall on the second floor, which is similar to the damage of cast-
in-place structures. This is due to the high stress is concentrated at the
edges of the opening under seismic action. There was mild concrete
punching shear failure around the bolt connections, whereas no offset or
rotation of the steel plates of the connections were observed, nor did the
holes in the steel plates distort. A few bolts were loose at the wall-to-wall
connection on the second floor, as shown in Fig. 9 (f).
On the whole, when the test model suffered by strong earthquakes,
owing to the light weight of the PCSPs, the damage is relatively slight,
the vast majority of the bolts maintain fastening, and the galvanized
steel plates and high strength bolts are not failure. The model maintains
the integrity of the structure with a good seismic performance under
SLE, DBE and MCE. Furthermore, the PCSWPS satisfies the objectives of
three seismic fortification levels as per GB50011-2010, that is, the first
level: no damage under SLE; the Second level: repairable damage under
MCE; the third level: no collapse under DBE.
3.2. Dynamic characteristics
The white noise excitation is used to determine the dynamic char­
acteristics of the test model. The dynamic characteristics can be ob­
tained through the transfer function between the acceleration response
of the roof slabs and the shaking table countertop. The natural frequency
is determined using the subspace method of pattern recognition [37,38],
and the results are confirmed using the transfer function approach. As
J.-X. He et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543

Fig. 5. Design sketch of test model: red line repesents the enclosed angle steel frame; blue line repesents the reinforcement. (unit: mm). (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

5
J.-X. He et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543

Table 1 %, 4.23 % and 11.26 %, and the first damping ratio increased by 1.92 %,
Details of reinforcement and shear connector. 5.35 % and 14.7 %. As described damage observation above, the
Component Reinforcement Reinforcement location Shear connector decrease of natural frequency and the increase of damping ratio are
related to slight structural damage and a few loose bolts.
Wall panels D6@200 Double two-way layout D8 GFRP connectors
Floor slabs D8@200 D8 continues trusses In summary, the box-type structural form significantly increases the
Roof slabs D8@200 D8 GFRP connectors lateral stiffness of the structure in comparison to the conventional cast-
in-place reinforcement concrete shear wall system, resulting in the rel­
Note: D represents diameter; @ represents spacing of steel bars.
atively high natural frequency of the test model. However, the damping
ratio of the PCSWPS intermediates between that of typical steel and
indicated in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11, before the tests, the first natural fre­
reinforcement concrete structure, owing to the structural configuration
quency is 9.272 Hz, the second natural frequency is 10.757 Hz, and the
of the PCSPs. The PCSPs provide a quite light weight, which is consid­
first damping ratio is 2.711 %. The natural frequency is proportional to
ered advantageous in the seismic design. In addition, the bolt connec­
the stiffness and inversely proportional to the mass of the structure. The
tions provide not only stiffness and strength but also ductility that
first natural frequency of 9.272 Hz suggested that the PCSWPS has a
exceeds most reinforcement concrete structures. The natural frequency
high lateral stiffness.
decreases mildly, indicating that the overall structural damage was
As the PGA of seismic excitations increases, it is seen that the first
minor, and the PCSWPS has good seismic behavior under high intensity
and second natural frequencies of the PCSWPS gradually reduce. In
earthquakes.
general, the first and second natural frequencies keep a stable decline
without obvious change. The degradation of the natural frequencies
indicates the structural damage occurred at the structure level. After 3.3. Acceleration responses
SLE, DBE and MCE, the degradation of the first natural frequency is 2.36
%, 3.61 % and 10.88 %, the second natural frequency decreased by 1.75 The acceleration envelope values of each floor under SLE, DBE, and

Fig. 6. Onsite construction of PCSWPS.

Fig. 7. Layout of accelerometers and displacement transducers.

6
J.-X. He et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543

formula is employed to simplify the calculation.

⃒ ̅̅→⃒ ⃒ ̅̅→⃒
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
⃒P0 P’0 ⃒ + ⃒P1 P’1 ⃒ |d1 − d2 |
θ= ⃒ ⃒ = (2)
⃒ ̅̅→⃒ L
⃒P0 P1 ⃒

Fig. 8. Acceleration response spectrum.
where d1 and d2 are the values of the displacement sensors on both sides
in the direction of vibration, L is the distance between two displacement
sensors, approximately equals to the width of the structure.
The maximum torsion angle of first floor and second floor are drawn
in the Fig. 16. With the increase of the PGA, the torsion response of the
structure progressively increases. The torsion angle of the second floor is
almost twice that of the first floor. However, the torsion response of both
first floor and second floor are tiny, and the largest torsion angle appears
on the second floor under Taft wave at the MCE level, which is less than
0.001 rad. It demonstrates that the mass and the stiffness of the model
were basically symmetric, which is consistent with the original design,
therefore the torsion of the building can be reasonably neglected in this
study.

Table 2
3.5. Displacement responses
Seismic loading cases.
The dry bolt connection is generally susceptible to the sliding or
Case No. Intensity Seismic excitations PGA
damage of precast components under seismic loads, which may have
WN1 – White noise 0.07 g great harm to life safety and should be controlled [32,40,41]. In terms of
1–3 SLE Taft - El Centro - Artificial 0.07 g
this issue, the number of connections is increased appropriately at the
WN2 – White noise 0.07 g
4–6 DBE Taft - El Centro - Artificial 0.2 g structural design stage, and the fastening of high-strength bolts is
WN3 – White noise 0.07 g emphasized in the assembly progress. No connection damage was
7–9 MCE Taft - El Centro - Artificial 0.4 g observed during the tests, and it is speculated that the floor slab may slid
WN4 – White noise 0.07 g considering the loosening of a few bolts. The sliding values of wall-to-
floor connections and the wall deformation can be calculated by
MCE are plotted in Fig. 12, and the acceleration time-history curves of displacement transducers placed above and below the joints. The sliding
ground motion and top floor are drawn in Fig. 13. The differences in the between wall and floor/roof under Taft wave at the MCE level is drawn
characteristics of response spectrum make the acceleration response of in Fig. 17. Due to the correlation between dynamical friction and normal
the structure under various seismic excitations not exactly the same, and pressure, the sliding value of roof slabs is maximum. Although the
the results show that the structure is most sensitive to Taft seismic wave, sliding of the precast components cannot be completely avoided, the
followed by Artificial seismic wave and El Centro seismic wave. wall deformation is the main source of displacement. Moreover, the
As the PGA of the seismic excitations increases, the acceleration sliding of the floor slab at the proper level provides a certain degree of
response of each story follows the similar variation tendency, and the energy dissipation for the PCSWPS. The inter-story displacement time
absolute acceleration envelope value on the top floor basically tends to history curves under MCE are shown in the Fig. 18.
increase nonlinearly, as shown in Fig. 14. The magnification of accel­ The inter-story displacement is mainly caused by the deformation of
eration dynamic on the top floor decreases gradually with further the wall panels, and the precast structures still lack relevant engineering
loading. The PCSWPS has the relatively small acceleration responses, assessment criterion in China, so the evaluation index of the shear wall is
because of the high overall stiffness. The peak acceleration of the top applied, which is enough mature and conservative. On the basis of the
floor drops slightly, indicating that the strength of the structure is not Chinese Code for seismic design of buildings GB50011-2010, the inter-
fully revealed even when the PGA arrived the MCE level, so the PCSWPS story drift ratio (IDR) limit values of 0.1 %, 0.2 %, 0.4 %, and 0.83 %
still have large safety redundancy responding to major earthquake (i.e.1/1000, 1/500, 1/250,and 1/120) divide the damage degree into no
threats. damage, slight damage, moderate damage, severe damage and collapse
failure, which represents the boundaries between damage states of shear
wall structures, as the dashed lines and filled color plotted in Fig. 19 for
3.4. Torsion responses comparison.
The envelope diagram of IDR is shown in Fig. 19. The maximum IDR
The torsion of buildings is an important issue to consider in seismic of each layer is relatively low, in which the highest IDR is 0.351 %,
analysis since it has a significant impact on the seismic response of indicating that the damage is moderate, the lateral stiffness is well
structures. Due to the existence of window and door openings in the wall maintained. Considering the influence of sliding and combining the
panels, the structure may have a torsional effect under the one-way overall results, the elastic deformation is still mainly dominant, and the
horizontal earthquakes, thus the torsional response under seismic exci­ structure begins to enter the plastic stage under MCE. Compared with
tations needs to be evaluated. As shown in Fig. 15, the corner points of the seismic excitations at the DBE level, the maximum IDR grows
the structure at initial position are P0 and P1 , while the corner points are significantly under seismic excitations at the MCE level, as indicated in
P0 and P1 when the torsion occurs. The torsion angle θ can be quantified
′ ′
Fig. 20. It illuminates that the structural damage and the lateral stiffness
as [39] degradation increases during the loading stage. With the increase of the
⎛
̅̅→ ̅̅→
⎞ PGA, the structural damage gradually accumulates, and the envelope
P0 P1 ⋅P’0 P’1 ⎠ value of IDR on the top floor presents a nonlinear increasing trend,
⎝
θ = arccos ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
⃒ ̅̅→⃒ ⃒ ̅̅→
⃒ (1)
⃒
⃒P0 P1 ⃒ × ⃒P’0 P’1 ⃒ which tends to increase continually.
Inter-story Shear Response.
Considering the torsion angle is slight during the tests, the following The inter-story shear force can be determined by the inertial force,

7
J.-X. He et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543

Fig. 9. Damage pattern of PCSWPS.

Fig. 10. Natural frequency. Fig. 11. Damping ratio.

8
J.-X. He et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543

Fig. 12. Envelope diagram of acceleration responses.

Fig. 13. Accleration time history curves under SLE, DBE and MCE.

multiplying the mass concentrated at the story by the acceleration time story, and aj is the acceleration time history data.
history measured at the corresponding story. The maximum inter-story The inter-story shear force is the main seismic response of structures,
shear force can be calculated by [42] which also reflects the magnitude of the internal force of the earthquake.
∑n ⃒
⃒ The inter-story shear force distribution of the structure reduces with the
Fi (t)max = − j=i
mj aj (t)⃒ (3) increasing height, as shown in Fig. 21. The inter-story shear force like­
max
wise grows dramatically as the acceleration response of each story under
where Fi is the inter-story shear force, n is the number of acceleration the enhancement of seismic intensity. The base shear force increases
time history data, mj is the corresponding mass concentrated at each from the initial 17.585 kN to 100.719 kN, an increase of 572.8 %. If the

9
J.-X. He et al.
Fig. 14. Peak acceleration of the top floor.
Fig. 15. Torsional response diagram.
structure has no sliding, the expected base shear force should be 187.4
kN under MCE. The hysteresis curves of the first and second floor under
MCE are plotted in Fig. 22. It can been clear seen that the influence of
sliding to the relation between force and displacement, and the stiffness
degeneration is not obvious. The sliding of the second floor is
Fig. 16. Maximum torsion angle.
10
Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543
significantly larger than the sliding of the first floor, and the appropriate
sliding between precast components can provide the energy dissipation
under seismic action.
3.6. Local response of connections
The strain gauges are arranged on the steel plates of the dry
connection to investigate the force transferred. The connection
perpendicular to the vibration direction is considered to be in the one-
way stress state, and the connection parallel to the vibration direction
is considered to be in the two-way stress state. The strain can be con­
verted into the stress by Generalized Hooke’s Law, in which the three-
axis strain rosette gauge with the layout of 0◦ , 45◦ and 90◦ can be
calculated according to the following equation.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅
E(εo + ε90 ) E (ε − ε )2 (2ε − ε − ε )2
σ1,2 = ±
o 90
+
45 o 90 (4)
2(1 − v) 1+v 2 2
( )
1
φ = arctan
2ε45 − εo − ε90
(5)
2 εo − ε90
where σ1,2 is the maximum and minimum principal stress; E is the
Young’s modulus; v is the Poisson’s ratio; εθ is the strain of the strain
rosette gauge at θ degree azimuth; φ is the angle between the maximum
principal stress and the horizontal direction.
The stress of the connection at the bottom of each floor is drawn in
Fig. 23. In Fig. 23 (a) and (b), the figures represent the connections
parallel to the vibration direction, and the information contains the
maximum principal stress of the connection and the azimuth of
maximum principal stress with respect to the horizontal direction.
Fig. 23 (c) and (d) represent the connections perpendicular to the vi­
bration direction, which exhibits the stresses of the L type connections at
the wall-to-floor joint.
The direction of the maximum principal stress at the I type connec­
tions always changes under seismic excitation, and the azimuth is
around 45◦ , indicating the connections parallel to the vibration direc­
tion are mainly subjected to the shear action. The stress of the L type
connections shows that the steel plates are tensile or compressed at the
wall-to-floor joint. It can be inferred that the connections perpendicular
to the vibration direction are subjected to the simultaneous action of
tensile and shear. The force mechanism of the remaining connections
should be similar to the above connections which are parallel or
perpendicular to the vibration direction.
J.-X. He et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543

Fig. 17. Sliding values of 2nd floor under Taft wave at the MCE level.

Fig. 18. Inter-story displacement time history curves under MCE.

Fig. 19. Envelope diagram of IDR.

11
J.-X. He et al.
Fig. 20. Maximum IDR.
Fig. 21. Maximum inter-story shear force.
4. Seismic fragility of PCSWPS
4.1. Seismic fragility analysis
Seismic fragility analysis is an essential method to evaluate the
seismic performance of structures [43–46]. It can predict the probability
of various damage states under different earthquake magnitudes. The
seismic fragility of structure refers to the probability that the structure
reaches a certain limit state, which is an inherent characteristic of the
structure.
Seismic fragility analysis describes the relationship between the
ground motion intensity and the structural damage degree from a
macroscopic perspective, and quantitatively describes the seismic per­
formance of structures from probability. The fragility curve, due to the
progressive accumulation of damage and the limited number of tests, is
hard to be obtain in the shaking table tests [42]. In the tests, the
observation and results show that the damage of PCSWPS is slight, and
reasonable loading number are set to minimize damage effects, leading
to the plastic behavior is not obvious. Therefore, the influence of the
cumulative damage can be neglected in this seismic fragility analysis.
4.2. Damage limit states
When the engineering demand parameter (EDP) exceeds a limit state
under a certain ground motion intensity measure (IM), the structure is
considered to be in the corresponding limit state. The definition of
damage limit is an important step for fragility analysis. As mentioned
above, the IDR limit value is specified in GB50011-2010 at 0.1 %, 0.2 %,
12
Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543
0.4 %, and 0.83 %, and divides the damage states of shear wall into no
damage, slight damage, moderate damage, severe damage and collapse
failure to evaluate the structural seismic performance. The limit values
of IDR set by the Chinese code are strict for precast concrete structures,
as in this case the structures are regarded as equivalent to cast-in-place
structures. From the test results, the PCSWPS basically satisfies that
requirement.
The seismic performance of the PCSWPS is determined by the per­
formance of wall panels and bolt connections, thus the performance
design targets of the PCSWPS can be specified as follows: (a) under SLE,
the structure should stay elastic,the bolts should not be loosened, and
the structure needs to no repair; (b) under DBE, the structure could
suffer slight damage such as micro-cracks and minor spalling of con­
crete, which can be easily repaired; (c) under MCE, the structure could
suffer moderate damage, and the bolts allow to be loosened, which
needs to be repaired and strengthened; and (d) under the higher mag­
nitude earthquakes than MCE, e.g. extremely rare earthquakes, the
structure cannot collapse, which should applied anti-collapse measures.
The limit states and the corresponding performance levels are summa­
rized in Table 3.
4.3. Probabilistic seismic demand model
The probabilistic seismic demand model reflects the transmission
process of uncertainty from ground motion to structure, and it repre­
sents the probabilistic relationship between earthquake intensity and
structural response. The probabilistic relationship between IM and EDP
is established as power exponential distribution [47].
EDP = α(IM)β (6)
where α and β are unknown regression coefficients obtained from log­
arithm linear regression.
In Equation (6), IM refers to PGA, and EDP is the maximum IDR (θ).
Substitute the indexes selected and take logarithms of both sides.
ln(θ) = lnα + βln(PGA) = a + bln(PGA) (7)
where a and b can be obtained from logarithm linear regression against
the natural logarithm of θ versus the natural logarithm of PGA. The
regression analysis results are shown in the Fig. 24.
Since the randomness of the structure is generally smaller than that
of the ground motion, the seismic capacity of the structure is often
regarded as deterministic. In this case, there is a definite limit value for
each limit state. As long as the structural response reaches this value, the
structural damage is considered to have reached the corresponding limit
state. Under varying ground motions at the same seismic intensity, the
dynamic responses of the structure follow the lognormal distribution.
The fragility function that gives the probability of exceeding the pre­
determined performance level Pf can be defined by [47]
[ ]
ln(θ/θLi )
Pf (θ ≥ θLi |PGA ) = Φ i = 1, 2, 3, 4 (8)
β
where Φ[x] is the standard normal cumulative distribution function,
∫ x − t2
Φ[x] = √1̅̅̅̅
2π − ∞
e 2 dt; θ is the median values of the IDR；θLi is the limit
value of IDR corresponding to the damage limit states, as shown in
( )1/2
Table 3;β = β2θ + β2θLi , the logarithmic standard deviation of lnθ and
lnθLi , incorporates uncertainty in the seismic fragility analysis, with the
value of 0.5 when the independent variable is PGA [48].
4.4. Seismic fragility curves
The seismic fragility curves of the PCSWPS are established through
probabilistic seismic demand analysis and capacity analysis, and the
exceedance probabilities of no damage, slight damage and moderate
J.-X. He et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543

Fig. 22. Hysteresis curves of first and second floor under MCE.

Fig. 23. Stress of dry connection at each floor bottom under Artificial wave at the MCE level.

13
J.-X. He et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543

Table 3 {
Performance objective of PCSWPS. 1 − Pf (θ ≥ θLi ) i=1
Pc = ( ) (9)
Damage Detail of damage Performance Limit Pf (θ ≥ θLi ) − Pf θ ≥ θL(i+1) i =
∕1
state objective value of
IDR where Pf is the probability of exceeding the predetermined performance
No damage No structural damage No damage level, which is calculated by Equation (8).
Slight Micro-cracks, and slight spalling Easy to repair 0.1 % (1/ For a given structure, the uncertainty of its structural capacity is little
damage of concrete 1000) and can be ignored. Therefore, it can be considered that the limit state is
Moderate Cracks propagating, severe Need to repair 0.2 % (1/
definite and the failure state is an interval. As drawn in Fig. 26, the
damage spalling of concrete and most 500)
bolts loosening 0.4 % (1/ failure probability curves of damage states take on hump shape. The
Severe Wall panels yield, and serious No collapse 250) vertex of the curve represents the maximum probability of reaching the
damage irreparable damage 0.83 % damage state corresponding to the curve at the acceleration value of the
Collapse Prone to collapse – (1/120) x-coordinate of this point. The intersection of the curves indicates that
faliure
the probability of the structure reaching the two damage states is the
same. The failure probability curves of damage states denoted structural
damage condition in good agreement with that observed in the tests. The
failure probability curves more clearly showed the damage degree of the
PCSWPS under the seismic excitation of each PGA, illustrating that the
PCSWPS is likely to occur slight or moderate damage under the ground
motion at the MCE level.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, the sustainable, light-weight, reversible and cost-

effective PCSPs are applied to the main lateral and vertical load-
bearing components in the precast structure system, which are assem­
bled by the effective dry connections including the enclosed angle steel
frame, steel plates, and high strength bolts. The shaking table tests are
conducted to study the damage pattern and dynamic response of the
structure under SLE, DBE, and MCE. The seismic fragility analysis of the
PCSWPS are investigated by the shaking table test results. The main
findings are as follows:
Fig. 24. Logarithm linear regression between θ and PGA.
(1) The cumulative damage and a few bolt loosening lead to the
decrease of natural frequency and the increase of damping ratio.
damage are evaluated under SLE, DBE and MCE level earthquakes. The box-type structural form of PCSWPS, utilized the enclosed
Fig. 25 shows that the seismic fragility curves take the form of sigmoid angle steel frame and the multipoint bolt connections, provide
function. When the input PGA is 0.4 g, the probability of structural high lateral stiffness, strength and ductility to resist earthquakes.
damage exceeding no damage limit state is 84.2 %, the probability of Owing to the sandwich configuration of the PCSPs, the damping
exceeding slight damage limit state is 35.1 %, and the probability of ratio of the PCSWPS is between that of typical steel and rein­
exceeding moderate damage limit state is 3.8 %. forcement concrete structure, whereas the light weight of the
After calculating the exceedance probabilities of limiting damage PSCPs profitably reduce the dynamic responses of the structure
states, it is simple to solve the failure probability Pc of the PCSWPS under strong earthquakes.
reaching the corresponding damage state [49]. (2) With the increase of PGA, the acceleration responses of each floor
present a similar trend, the acceleration dynamic magnification
coefficient of the top floor gradually decreases, and the maximum

Fig. 25. Seismic fragility curves. Fig. 26. Failure probability curves.

14
J.-X. He et al.
acceleration at the top of the structure basically increases non­
linearly. The mass and stiffness of the PCSWPS are basically
symmetric without the torsion effect. Under the MCE level
ground motions, the PCSWPS has relatively small acceleration
responses, suffers slight damage, and has begun to enter the
plastic stage, demonstrating the strong structural integrity. he
PCSWPS is satisfies the suggested objectives of seismic fortifica­
tion, with large safety margins and high strength reserves
responding to major earthquake threats.
(3) The mild sliding between the PCSPs occurs during the strong
earthquakes, which consumes a fraction of seismic energy prop­
erly. The largest sliding appears between the roof and wall, since
the slide values are negatively correlated with the mass and the
responses on the top of structure are significate. Besides, the
deformation of wall panels is still the predominant deformation.
(4) The seismic fragility analysis of PCSWPS is conducted based on
the shaking table test data, which evaluated the exceedance
probabilities of no damage, slight damage, moderate damage,
and severe damage states under SLE, DBE and MCE. The seismic
fragility curves and the failure probability curves quantitatively
describe the seismic performance of PCSWPS from the view of
probability, showing that the PCSWPS is likely to occur slight or
moderate damage under the ground motion at the MCE level.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jia-Xuan He: Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investiga­
tion, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization.
Zhao-Dong Xu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Su­
pervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Lian-Yu Zhang:
Resources, Project administration. Zhi-Hua Lin: Resources, Project
administration. Zhong-Wei Hu: Software, Investigation, Data curation,
Writing – review & editing. Qiang-Qiang Li: Investigation, Writing –
review & editing. Yao-Rong Dong: Software, Writing – review &
editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation for the financial support from
National Natural Science Foundation of China (52130807), National
Key Research and Development Plans (2019YFE0121900), the Jiangsu
Province International Cooperation Project (BZ2022037), and Tencent
Foundation through the XPLORER PRIZE. Support for the design and
manufacture of the test model is provided by Shandong Hongyi Pre­
fabricated Building Technology Co., LTD.
References
[1] O’Hegarty R, Kinnane O. Review of precast concrete sandwich panels and their
innovations. Constr Build Mater 2020;233.
[2] Kurama YC, Sritharan S, Fleischman RB, Restrepo JI, Henry RS, Cleland NM, et al.
Seismic-resistant precast concrete structures: state of the art. J Struct Eng 2018;
144:3118001.
[3] Ye M, Jiang J, Chen HM, Zhou HY, Song DD. Seismic behavior of an innovative
hybrid beam-column connection for precast concrete structures. Eng Struct 2021;
227.
[4] Elliott KS. Precast concrete structures. Crc Press; 2019.
15
Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543
[5] Ghayeb HH, Razak HA, Sulong NHR. Performance of dowel beam-to-column
connections for precast concrete systems under seismic loads: A review. Constr
Build Mater 2020;237.
[6] Singhal S, Chourasia A, Chellappa S, Parashar J. Precast reinforced concrete shear
walls: State of the art review. Struct Concr 2019;20:886–98.
[7] Dal Lago B, Biondini F, Toniolo G. Friction-based dissipative devices for precast
concrete panels. Eng Struct 2017;147:356–71.
[8] Seifi P, Henry RS, Ingham JM. Panel connection details in existing New Zealand
precast concrete buildings. Bull New Zeal Soc Earthq Eng 2016;49:190–9.
[9] Dong Y, Xu Z, Shi Q, Li Q, He Z, Cheng Y. Seismic performance and material-level
damage evolution of retrofitted RC framed structures by high-performance AVED
under different shear-span ratio. J Build Eng 2023;63:105495.
[10] Junhong H, Wen P, Jian Z, Haojun L. Study on the vulnerability of buildings in
rural areas of Yunnan province based on seismic damage statistics since 1993.
Build Struct 2016:S1.
[11] Li Q, Che J, Ma C, Liu H, Wang D. Research Summary on the Masonry Structure
Reinforcement Technology in China. DEStech Trans Eng Technol Res 2017.
[12] Dong Z, Li G, Song B, Lu G, Li H. Failure risk assessment method of masonry
structures under earthquakes and flood scouring. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2021:
1–16.
[13] Ru Q, Feng J, Lu Q. Application and Prospects of Prefabricated Buildings in Rural
Areas of China. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1637, IOP Publishing; 2020, p. 12078.
[14] Xu ZD. Horizontal shaking table tests on structures using innovative earthquake
mitigation devices. J Sound Vib 2009;325:34–48.
[15] Xu ZD. Earthquake mitigation study on viscoelastic dampers for reinforced
concrete structures. J Vib Control 2007;13:29–43.
[16] Xu ZD, Wu KY. Damage detection for space truss structures based on strain mode
under ambient excitation. J Eng Mech 2012;138:1215–23.
[17] Klõšeiko P, Piir R, Jeltsov M, Kalamees T. Thermal bridge effect of vertical diagonal
tie connectors in precast concrete sandwich panels: an experimental and
computational study. E3S Web Conf., vol. 172, EDP Sciences; 2020, p. 8001.
[18] Kiil M, Käärid M-S, Klõšeiko P, Võsa K-V, Simson R, Sarevet H, et al. PCSP’s
Diagonal Tie Connectors Thermal Bridges Impact on Energy Performance and
Operational Cost: Case Study of a High-Rise Residential Building in Estonia. E3S
Web Conf., vol. 172, EDP Sciences; 2020, p. 8006.
[19] O’Hegarty R, Reilly A, West R, Kinnane O. Thermal investigation of thin precast
concrete sandwich panels. J Build Eng 2020;27.
[20] Benayoune A, Samad AAA, Trikha DN, Ali AAA, Ashrabov AA. Structural
behaviour of eccentrically loaded precast sandwich panels. Constr Build Mater
2006;20:713–24.
[21] Benayoune A, Samad AAA, Ali AAA, Trikha DN. Response of pre-cast reinforced
composite sandwich panels to axial loading. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:677–85.
[22] Amran YHM, Rashid RSM, Hejazi F, Safiee NA, Ali AAA. Structural behavior of
laterally loaded precast foamed concrete sandwich panel. Int J Civil, Environ Struct
Constr Archit Eng 2016;10:255–63.
[23] Benayoune A, Samad AAA, Trikha DN, Ali AAA, Ellinna SHM. Flexural behaviour
of pre-cast concrete sandwich composite panel–experimental and theoretical
investigations. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:580–92.
[24] Hopkins PM, Chen A, Yossef M. Static and dynamic analyses of insulated concrete
sandwich panels using a unified non-linear finite element model. Eng Struct 2017;
132:249–59.
[25] Malla P, Xiong F, Cai G, Xu Y, Larbi AS, Chen W. Numerical study on the behaviour
of vertical bolted joints for precast concrete wall-based low-rise buildings. J Build
Eng 2021;33.
[26] Guo W, Zhai Z, Cui Y, Yu Z, Wu X. Seismic performance assessment of low-rise
precast wall panel structure with bolt connections. Eng Struct 2019;181:562–78.
[27] Dal Lago B, Biondini F, Toniolo G. Experimental tests on multiple-slit devices for
precast concrete panels. Eng Struct 2018;167:420–30.
[28] JGJ 1–2014.. Technical Specifications for Precast Concrete Structures. Beijing:
China Architecture and Building Press; 2014.
[29] GB 50017-2010. Code for design of concrete structures. Beijing: China Architecture
and Industry Press; 2010.
[30] Cai G, Xiong F, Xu Y, Larbi AS, Lu Y, Yoshizawa M. A Demountable connection for
low-rise precast concrete structures with DfD for construction sustainability-A
preliminary test under cyclic loads. Sustain 2019:11.
[31] Chen W, Xiong F, Lu Y, Chen J, Feng B, Zhao P, et al. Experimental Investigation of
the Seismic Performance of a Novel Bolt-Assembled Precast Panel Building
Structure. J Earthq Tsunami 2019;13:1–27.
[32] Sun J, Qiu H, Jiang H. Experimental study and associated mechanism analysis of
horizontal bolted connections involved in a precast concrete shear wall system.
Struct Concr 2019;20:282–95.
[33] Nakaki SD. Development of a Precast Concrete Shear-Wall System. PCI J 2007;52:
1–15.
[34] Dal Lago B, Biondini F, Toniolo G. Friction-based dissipative devices for precast
concrete panels. Eng Struct 2017;147:356–71.
[35] Ghodrati Amiri G, Bagheri A, Fadavi M. New method for generation of artificial
ground motion by a nonstationary Kanai-Tajimi model and wavelet transform.
Struct Eng Mech 2007;26:709–23.
[36] GB 50011-2010. Code for seismic design of buildings. Beijing: China Architecture
and Industry Press; 2010.
[37] Moaveni B, Asgarieh E. Deterministic-stochastic subspace identification method for
identification of nonlinear structures as time-varying linear systems. Mech Syst
Signal Process 2012;31:40–55.
[38] Huang CS, Lin HL. Modal identification of structures from ambient vibration, free
vibration, and seismic response data via a subspace approach. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2001;30:1857–78.
J.-X. He et al.
[39] Dai K, Luo X, Lu Y, Li B, Zhong J, Zhang S, et al. Seismic collision potential of
adjacent base-isolated buildings with corridor bridges subjected to bidirectional
near-fault pulse-like ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2020;135.
[40] Bournas DA, Negro P, Molina FJ. Pseudodynamic tests on a full-scale 3-storey
precast concrete building: behavior of the mechanical connections and floor
diaphragms. Eng Struct 2013;57:609–27.
[41] Meng B, Li F, Zhong W, Zheng Y, Du Q. Strengthening strategies against the
progressive collapse of steel frames with extended end-plate connections. Eng
Struct 2023;274:115154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115154.
[42] Graziotti F, Tomassetti U, Kallioras S, Penna A, Magenes G. Shaking table test on a
full scale URM cavity wall building. Bull Earthq Eng 2017;15:5329–64.
[43] Cosenza E, Di Sarno L, Maddaloni G, Magliulo G, Petrone C, Prota A. Shake table
tests for the seismic fragility evaluation of hospital rooms. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2015;44:23–40.
16
Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115543
[44] Rakicevic Z, Bogdanovic A, Farsangi EN, Sivandi-Pour A. A hybrid seismic isolation
system toward more resilient structures: Shaking table experiment and fragility
analysis. J Build Eng 2021;38.
[45] Taslimi A, Tehranizadeh M, Shamlu M. Seismic fragility analysis of RC frame-core
wall buildings under the combined vertical and horizontal ground motions. Earthq
Struct 2021;20:175–85.
[46] Lagaros ND, Tsompanakis Y, Psarropoulos PN, Georgopoulos EC. Computationally
efficient seismic fragility analysis of geostructures. Comput Struct 2009;87:
1195–203.
[47] Baker JW. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural
analysis. Earthq Spectra 2015;31:579–99.
[48] Melchers RE, Beck AT. Structural reliability analysis and prediction. John wiley &
sons 2018.
[49] Schultz M. T. , Gouldby B. P. , Simm J. Beyond the factor of safety developing
fragility curves to characterize system reliability; 2010.