applied

sciences
Article
Effect of Uncertainties in Material and Structural
Detailing on the Seismic Vulnerability of RC Frames
Considering Construction Quality Defects
Siyun Kim 1 , Taehwan Moon 2 and Sung Jig Kim 1, *
1 Department of Architectural Engineering, Keimyung University, Daegu 42601, Korea;
kimsiyun1989@gmail.com
2 MIRAE Structural Engineering, Seoul 05836, Korea; mth7073@naver.com
* Correspondence: sjkim4@kmu.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-53-580-5273




Received: 15 November 2020; Accepted: 8 December 2020; Published: 10 December 2020


Abstract: This paper evaluates the effect of construction quality defects on the seismic vulnerability of
reinforced concrete (RC) frames. The variability in the construction quality of material properties and
structural detailing is considered to assess the effect on the seismic behavior of RC frames. Concrete
strength and yield strength of the reinforcement are selected as uncertain variables for the material
properties, while the variabilities in the longitudinal reinforcement ratio and the volumetric ratio
of transverse reinforcement are employed for structural detailing. Taking into account the selected
construction quality uncertainties, the sensitivity analysis of the seismic vulnerability of the RC
frames is performed and the impact of significant parameters is assessed at the global and local
levels. This extensive analytical study reveals that the seismic vulnerability of the selected RC frame
is particularly sensitive to concrete strength and the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement.

Keywords: construction quality uncertainty; sensitivity analysis; seismic vulnerability; RC frame

1. Introduction
Seismic design and construction technologies have improved considerably over the years, but
unexpected earthquake damage to reinforced concrete (RC) structures continues to occur. In previous
earthquakes (e.g., the Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan (1999), Maule earthquake in Chile (2010), and
Pohang earthquake in South Korea (2017)), many researchers have attributed the undesired failures in
some RC structures to construction quality defects, including poor quality materials and inadequate
reinforcement details [1–3]. Typical types of failures due to poor construction practices during
earthquake loads include: (i) brittle shear failure of columns and/or beams due to insufficient shear
reinforcement [4,5], and (ii) buckling of longitudinal bars or shear failure in beam–column joints due to
inadequate spacing or lack of transverse stirrups [6–8]. In particular, the Pohang earthquake (Mw 5.4)
was the most damaging event in South Korea due to the relatively shallow depth (7 km) and the
location in the Pohang basin which consists of non-marine to deep marine sedimentary strata. The most
structural damage was caused by poor construction practices of piloti-type low-rise RC buildings and
schools. As shown in Figure 1, the failure of many RC columns in the seismically designed buildings
was observed due to excessive concrete cover, the inclusion of drainage pipes in the column members,
the inadequate spacing of the shear reinforcement, or the poor anchorage of ties.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832; doi:10.3390/app10248832 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15

including manufacturing, transporting, and pouring, can affect the quality of the material, and aging
can
Appl. degrade its8832
Sci. 2020, 10, strength. The shear and flexural strengths of members can be also significantly
2 of 16
reduced due to the wide tie spacing and the cover thickness, respectively.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 1.
1. Structural
Structuraldamage
damagedueduetotoinadequate
inadequateconstruction
construction after thethe
after Pohang Earthquake
Pohang Earthquake (2017): (a)
(2017):
excessive clear
(a) excessive cover;
clear (b)(b)
cover; wide stirrup
wide spacing
stirrup spacing(S(Sisisthe
theobserved
observedspacing
spacing and
and Smin
min is
isthe
the minimum
minimum
spacing
spacing specified
specified by the design code).

The seismic
Many studiesvulnerability of RC structures
have been published concerning can the
increase significantly
sensitivity due to demand
of the seismic the uncertainties
or fragility of
material
to strengthsparameters
the modeling and sectionofproperties causedInbythe
RC structures. construction
literature, practices.
materials,All construction
modeling processes,
strategies, and
including manufacturing,
geometric configuration have transporting, and pouring,
been considered can affect
as uncertain the quality
variables andof the material,
their and aging
tangible impact on
can degrade its strength. The shear and flexural strengths of members
seismic vulnerability has been revealed through sensitivity and reliability analyses [9–12]. For can be also significantly reduced
due to theKim
example, wide and tieHan
spacing and the cover
[4] analyzed thickness,ofrespectively.
the sensitivity concrete strength, yield strength, and damping
Many studies have been published
ratio on the seismic response of staggered wall structures. concerning the sensitivity
The Tornado of the seismic Method
Diagram demand(TDM)or fragility
and
to theOrder
First modeling
Second parameters
Moment of RC structures.
(FOSM) method were In theemployed
literature,tomaterials,
assess themodeling
sensitivitystrategies,
of modeling and
geometric configuration
uncertainties. It was concluded have been considered
that the sensitivity as of
uncertain
each materialvariables and theircould
uncertainty tangible impact
depend on
on the
seismic vulnerability has been revealed through sensitivity and reliability
ground motion intensity, while damping ratio variation could be more sensitive regardless of its analyses [9–12]. For example,
Kim and In
intensity. Han [4] analyzed
addition the sensitivity
to structural variables,ofthe concrete
effect of strength,
ground yieldmotion strength, and damping
was evaluated as well ratio
[13–
on the
16]. seismic
Padgett andresponse
DesRoches of staggered
[15] showed wall thatstructures.
the seismicThe Tornado Diagram
vulnerability of bridgeMethod (TDM)
components and
could
First Order Second Moment (FOSM) method were employed
be notably affected by the uncertainty in ground motion rather than geometric or modeling to assess the sensitivity of modeling
uncertainties.Both
uncertainties. It was Leeconcluded
and Mosalam that[13]
theand sensitivity
Kwon and of each
Elnashaimaterial uncertainty
[14] carried could depend
out sensitivity analyseson
the ground motion intensity, while damping ratio variation could
of uncertainties in materials, structural properties, and ground motion for RC frames through the be more sensitive regardless of its
intensity.
FOSM In addition
method. It wasto structural
reported thatvariables, the effect
the uncertainty inof ground
seismic motion
loads was important
is more evaluated than
as well [13–16].
uncertain
Padgett and
structural DesRoches
variables [15] of
in terms showed that on
the effects thethe
seismic vulnerability
vulnerability of theof bridge components
analyzed could be
structures. However,
anotably affectednumber
very limited by the uncertainty
of studies have in ground motion the
investigated rather than
effect of geometric
constructionor modeling uncertainties.
quality defects on the
Both Leevulnerability
seismic and Mosalam of[13]
RC and Kwon and
structures. For Elnashai
instance,[14]
Rajeev carried
andout sensitivity [17]
Tesfamariam analyses of uncertainties
evaluated the effect
in construction
of materials, structural
quality properties,
variability on andtheground
seismic motion
behaviorfor RC of aframes through
six-story the FOSMThe
RC structure. method. It was
variabilities
reported that the uncertainty in seismic loads is more important than
in the construction quality accounting for the material and structural detailing were categorized into uncertain structural variables in
termslevels,
three of the effects
‘poor’, on the vulnerability
‘average’, and ‘good’. of the analyzed
Analytical structures.
results concludedHowever,
that thea very limited number
probability seismic
of studies have investigated the effect of construction quality defects
demand model and fragility of the selected structure are quite sensitive to the construction quality on the seismic vulnerability of
RC structures. For instance, Rajeev and Tesfamariam [17] evaluated the effect of construction quality
variability.
variability on the
This study seismic behavior
evaluates the seismic of avulnerability
six-story RCofstructure.RC frames Theconsidering
variabilitiesconstruction
in the construction
quality
quality accounting for the material and structural detailing were categorized
defects that may occur in various environments. In this study, the construction quality is assumed into three levels, ‘poor’,
to
‘average’,
be related and ‘good’.uncertainty
to material Analytical results
(such asconcluded that the and
concrete strength probability seismicofdemand
yield strength model and
the reinforcement)
fragility
and of the selected
structural detailingstructure
uncertainty are quite
(suchsensitive to the construction
as longitudinal reinforcement quality
ratiovariability.
and the volumetric
This study evaluates the seismic vulnerability of RC frames considering construction quality
defects that may occur in various environments. In this study, the construction quality is assumed to
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 3 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15
ratio of transverse reinforcement), based on field observations from recent earthquakes. The impact
be related to material uncertainty (such as concrete strength and yield strength of the reinforcement)
ratio
of theof significant
transverse reinforcement),
parameters is also based on field
assessed at observations
the global and fromlocalrecent earthquakes.
levels through the The impact
sensitivity
and structural detailing uncertainty (such as longitudinal reinforcement ratio and the volumetric ratio
ofanalysis
the significant parameters
of the seismic fragility is of
also
theassessed
selectedat the global
uncertain and local levels through the sensitivity
variables.
of transverse reinforcement), based on field observations from recent earthquakes. The impact of the
analysis of the seismic fragility of the selected uncertain variables.
significant parameters is also assessed at the global and local levels through the sensitivity analysis of
2. Selected Structure and Modelling Parameters
the seismic fragility of the selected uncertain variables.
2. Selected Structure and Modelling Parameters
2.1. Description of Seclected Structure
2. Selected Structure and Modelling Parameters
2.1. Description of Seclected Structure
The main objective of this study is to estimate the effect of construction quality defects on the
2.1. Description
seismic of Seclected
The vulnerability
main objective ofofRC Structure
this study is to
structures. Toestimate
achieve thethiseffect of construction
objective, the reference quality defects
structure on the
should be
seismic
realisticvulnerability
The and
mainsimple
objective of
enoughRC structures.
of thisto study
conduct To achieve
parametric
is to this
estimate studies. objective, the
the effectTooffulfill reference structure
these requirements,
construction quality defectsshould
the on be
school
the
realistic
buildingand
seismic simple
shown
vulnerability in enough
of RC2to
Figure isconduct
considered
structures. parametric
to assess
To achieve studies. To fulfill
theobjective,
this seismic thethese
performance requirements,
reference ofstructure the
RC structures school
should with
be
building shown
construction in
quality Figure 2 is
uncertainty. considered
The to
selected assess the
structure seismic
complies performance
with
realistic and simple enough to conduct parametric studies. To fulfill these requirements, the school the of
1980s RC structures
Standard with
Drawings
construction
for School
building shownquality
Buildings uncertainty.
in Figureprovided The selected
by the
2 is considered structure
Ministry
to assess ofthe complies
Education, with
South
seismic performancetheKorea.
1980s ofStandard
Most of Drawings
RC structuresthe school
with
for School damaged
buildings
construction Buildings
quality due provided
uncertainty. by
to the PohangThethe Ministry
Earthquake
selected of
were
structure Education,
constructed
complies South
with Korea.
around
the the Most
1980s 1980s. of
StandardThetheplanschool
Drawingsview
buildings
andSchool
for damaged
elevation
Buildings due
of theprovidedto the
selectedby Pohang
structure Earthquake
are given
the Ministry were constructed
in Figure
of Education, 2 and
South around the
the analyzed
Korea. 1980s.
Most of the frameThe
school plan
is shaded view
buildings in
and elevation
Figure
damaged Theof
2a.due the
the selected
section
to details of
Pohang structure arewere
the selected
Earthquake given
columns in Figure 2around
and girders
constructed andare theshown
analyzed
the frame
in Figure
1980s. 3.isFor
The plan shaded
example,
view in
and
Figure
elevation2a. of
the cross Thethesection
section of details
selected of theare
thestructure
column selected
on columns
the first
given floor and
in Figure 2isandgirders
400 mm
the are
× 400
analyzed shown mm inwith
frame Figure 3. For
eight
is shaded example,
longitudinal
in Figure 2a.
the
The cross section
reinforcements,
section details of
and the
of two column on the
types of columns
the selected first
girders with floor
and cross is
girders 400
sections mm ×
of 350
are shown 400
inmm mm
Figure with
× 600 eight
mmexample,
3. For longitudinal
and 350 mm × 450
the cross
reinforcements,
mm areofused.
section and two
the column ontypes of girders
the first floor is with
400 mm cross× sections
400 mm of 350eight
with mm ×longitudinal
600 mm andreinforcements,
350 mm × 450
mm
and are
twoused.
types of girders with cross sections of 350 mm × 600 mm and 350 mm × 450 mm are used.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Plan view and elevation of the selected reinforced concrete (RC) structure (unit: mm): (a)
Figure 2.
2. Plan
plan; (b)
Figure view
view and elevation
elevation.
Plan elevation of
of the
theselected
selectedreinforced
reinforcedconcrete
concrete (RC)
(RC) structure
structure (unit:
(unit: mm):
mm): (a)(a)
plan;
plan; (b) elevation.
(b) elevation.

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)
Figure3.3.Section
Figure Sectiondetails
detailsof
ofselected
selectedmembers
members(unit:
(unit: mm):
mm): (a)
(a) column;
column; (b)
(b) girder
girder 1;
1; (c)
(c) girder
girder 2.
2.
Figure 3. Section details of selected members (unit: mm): (a) column; (b) girder 1; (c) girder 2.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 4 of 16

2.2. Uncertain Parameters and Structural Modelling

Taking into account the inadequate construction practices of school buildings built in the 1980s
and damaged by the Pohang Earthquake, the effects of material properties and structural details on the
seismic performance of the selected structure were evaluated. The compressive strength of concrete ( fc0 )
and yield strength of the reinforcement ( f y ) were considered as variables for the material uncertainty,
while the longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρl ) and volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement (ρw )
were selected as variables for the structural details.
As shown in Table 1, five cases for each variable were considered and thus, a total of 17 analytical
models were obtained. The reference names listed in Table 1 were defined by considering the name
and value of an uncertain variable. For example, CS18 is the analytical model with a concrete strength
of 18MPa. Note that the analytical models of CS24, YS400, LR2.00, and TR0.33 are identical and used as
the reference structural model with a median value of each variable. It was assumed that the column
section was 400 × 400 mm, and D10 with a yield strength of 400 MPa was used as shear reinforcement.
In addition, the analytical variables for the longitudinal rebar ratios were considered by increasing
and decreasing the cross-sectional area of eight reinforcements. Numerical models of RC structures
with uncertain variables were implemented and analyzed using the OpenSees software package [18],
which is a finite element analysis platform. To take into account the spread of plasticity along with the
element, the RC frame members were modeled by the Displacement-Based Beam-Column Element with
the material constitutive laws of Concrete02 and Steel01 for concrete and steel, respectively, as shown in
Figure 4. For the confined concrete, the confinement effect on the strength and strain was considered
by utilizing the formulae developed by Mander et al. [19].

Table 1. Uncertainty of material properties and structural details.

Material Structural Details

Reference Yield Strength Longitudinal Volumetric Ratio of
Concrete
Name of Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio, Transverse Reinforcement,
Strength, fc0 (MPa)
Reinforcement, fy (MPa) ρl (%) ρw (%)
CS18 18
CS21 21
CS24 24 400 2.00 0.33
CS27 27
CS30 30
YS300 300
YS350 350
YS400 24 400 2.00 0.33
YS450 450
YS500 500
LR1.50 1.50
LR1.75 1.75
LR2.00 24 400 2.00 0.33
LR2.25 2.25
LR2.50 2.50
TR0.23 0.23
TR0.27 0.27
TR0.33 24 400 2.00 0.33
TR0.41 0.41
TR0.54 0.54
 Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2020,
2020, 10,10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
8832 5 of
5 of 1615

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 4. 4.Material
Materialconstitutive
constitutive laws
laws inin OpenSees
OpenSees [18]:(a)(a)Steel01;
[18]: Steel01;(b)
(b)Concrete02.
Concrete02.

3.3.Limit
LimitStates
Statesand
andInput
InputofofGround
GroundMotions
Motions

3.1.
3.1.Limit
LimitStates
Statesand
andResponse
ResponseMeasure
Measure
AnAninterstory
interstorydrift
driftratio
ratioisisconsidered
consideredasasa aglobal
globalfailure
failurecriterion,
criterion,andandthus
thusthe
theinterstory
interstorydriftdrift
ratio
ratioofofeach
eachstructure
structurefrom froma anonlinear
nonlinearpushover
pushoveranalysis
analysiswith
withthetheloading
loadingprofile
profileofofthe
thefirst
firstmode
mode
shape
shapewas wasestimated.
estimated.Three Threelimitlimitstates
statesassociated
associatedwith withthethedesired
desiredstructural
structuralperformance
performancelevels levels
were
were defined: serviceability, damage control, and collapse prevention [20]. The serviceabilitylevel
defined: serviceability, damage control, and collapse prevention [20]. The serviceability levelisis
defined
definedwhenwhenlongitudinal
longitudinalreinforcement
reinforcementreaches reachesyielding
yieldingand andthe thedamage
damagecontrol
controllevel
levelisisdefined
defined
when
when concrete strain reaches the maximum confined stress. The collapse prevention levelisisdefined
concrete strain reaches the maximum confined stress. The collapse prevention level defined
when
whenconcrete
concretestrain
strainreaches
reachesthe theultimate
ultimateconfined
confinedstrain
strainthat
thatisissuggested
suggestedby bythe
theEurocode
Eurocode88[21]. [21].
More details can be found elsewhere.
More details can be found elsewhere.
Figure
Figure5 5shows
showsthe theestimated
estimatedinterstory
interstorydrift
driftratios
ratioscorresponding
correspondingtotothe thelimit
limitstates
statesofofeach
each
analytical
analyticalmodel.
model.ItItwas
wasobserved
observedthat thatdrift
driftratios
ratioscorresponding
correspondingtotothe thedamage
damagecontrol
controland andcollapse
collapse
prevention
preventionlevels
levelsincreased
increasedsignificantly
significantly withwith an an increase
increase inin concrete
concrete strength.
strength.For Forexample,
example, forfor
the
the collapse prevention level, the drift ratios for the models with concrete
collapse prevention level, the drift ratios for the models with concrete strengths of 18 MPa and strengths of 18 MPa and30
30MPa
MPawere were1.31%
1.31%andand 1.95%,
1.95%, respectively.
respectively. Thus,
Thus, thethe drift
drift ratio
ratioincreased
increasedby by48.9%.
48.9%.InInaddition,
addition,the the
notable
notable increase in the drift ratio associated with the collapse prevention level can be foundasasthe
increase in the drift ratio associated with the collapse prevention level can be found the
volumetric
volumetric ratio of transverse
ratio of transverse reinforcement
reinforcement increases. The TR0.23
increases. The TR0.23and TR0.54 modelsmodels
and TR0.54 reach driftreachratios
drift
ofratios
1.26%ofand 2.14%, respectively (an increase of 69.8%). However, a minor variation
1.26% and 2.14%, respectively (an increase of 69.8%). However, a minor variation in the drift in the drift ratio
corresponding to the serviceability
ratio corresponding level was
to the serviceability observed
level for all cases.
was observed for allCompared to the variation
cases. Compared of the
to the variation
concrete compressive
of the concrete strength strength
compressive and volumetric ratio of transverse
and volumetric reinforcement,
ratio of transverse the effect ofthe
reinforcement, theeffect
yieldof
strength of reinforcement and longitudinal reinforcement ratio on the
the yield strength of reinforcement and longitudinal reinforcement ratio on the drift limit wasdrift limit was minimal.
minimal.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 6 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

Figure 5. Interstory drift ratio corresponding to the limit states of each structure.

Figure
Figure
3.2. Input Ground 5. Interstory drift
5. Interstory
Motions drift ratio
ratio corresponding
corresponding to
to the
the limit
limit states
states of
of each
each structure.
structure.

3.2. Input Groundground

Earthquake Motions
3.2. Input Ground Motionsmotion records from 50 stations were selected to conduct nonlinear dynamic
analyses of the selected
Earthquake groundstructures.
motion recordsThe ground
from 50motion
stationssetwere
wasselected
collectedtofrom the Pacific
conduct Earthquake
nonlinear dynamic
Earthquake
Engineering ground
Research motion
Center records
(PEER) frommotion
strong 50 stations were selected
database. Various tolevels
conduct of nonlinear
ground dynamic
motion of
analyses of the selected structures. The ground motion set was collected from the Pacific Earthquake
analyses of the
magnitudes selected structures. The ground motion setkm
waswere
collected from the Pacific Earthquake
(M
Engineering Research Center (PEER) strong motion database. Various levels of ground motion 2.
w ) 5–6 and hypo-central distances of 5–60 selected as tabulated in Table of
Engineering
Note that Research
spectral Center
intensity (SI)(PEER)
is strong
defined by motion database.
Housner as the Various
integral of levels
the of ground motion
pseudo-velocity of
spectra
magnitudes (Mw ) 5–6 and hypo-central distances of 5–60 km were selected as tabulated in Table 2. Note
magnitudes
over (M
the period ) 5–6
range(SI)and
from hypo-central
0.1 to 2.5 distances
s [22]. Figure of 5–60 km were selected as tabulated in Table of2.
as the 6integral
shows ofthetheresponse acceleration spectra
w
that spectral intensity is defined by Housner pseudo-velocity spectra over the
Note that
selected spectral
records, intensity evenly
(SI) is defined by Housner asgthe integral
2.00 g of
at the pseudo-velocity spectra
period range fromwhich
0.1 to are distributed
2.5 s [22]. Figure 6 showsfrom
the 0.01
responseandacceleration the fundamental
spectra period
of selected of
records,
over
the the period
reference range
structure. from 0.1 to 2.5 s [22]. Figure 6 shows the response acceleration spectra of
which are evenly distributed from 0.01 g and 2.00 g at the fundamental period of the reference structure.
selected records, which are evenly distributed from 0.01 g and 2.00 g at the fundamental period of
the reference structure.

Figure 6. Response spectrum of selected ground motion records.

Figure 6. Response spectrum of selected ground motion records.

Figure 6. Response spectrum of selected ground motion records.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 7 of 16

Table 2. Selected ground motions.

Peak Peak
Fault
Ground Ground
Earthquake Mw Station Distance SI (cm)
Acceleration Velocity
(km)
(g) (cm/s)
Northern Calif-01
6.40 Ferndale City Hall 44.60 0.12 5.94 17.17
(1941)
Hollister-01 (1961) 5.60 Hollister City Hall 19.50 0.06 8.01 34.41
Cholame–Shandon
9.58 0.44 25.04 82.97
Parkfield (1966) 6.19 Array #5
Temblor pre-1969 15.90 0.36 22.16 52.03
Northern Calif-05
5.60 Ferndale City Hall 28.70 0.25 12.53 26.05
(1967)
Lytle Creek (1970) 5.33 Santa Anita Dam 42.50 0.05 1.70 2.96

San Fernando LA—Hollywood Stor FF 22.70 0.23 21.71 79.17

6.61
(1971) Lake Hughes #12 19.30 0.38 16.36 37.83

Managua 6.24 Managua ESSO1 4.06 0.37 29.06 114.55

Nicaragua (1972) 5.20 Managua ESSO2 4.98 0.26 25.40 90.69
Hollister-03 (1974) 5.14 Hollister City Hall 9.39 0.09 5.37 15.23
Friuli Italy-01
6.50 Tolmezzo 15.80 0.36 22.84 73.29
(1976)
Coyote Lake Dam—S.W.
Coyote Lake 6.13 0.14 11.75 31.75
5.74 Abut.
(1979)
Gilroy Array #2 9.02 0.19 10.27 40.30
Aeropueto Mexicli 0.34 0.31 42.79 163.01
Bonds Corner 2.66 0.60 46.75 174.57
EC County Center FF 7.31 0.21 38.42 142.52
El Centro Array #11 12.50 0.37 36.00 138.68
Imperial Valley-06
6.53 El Centro Array #4 7.05 0.48 39.62 178.08
(1979)
El Centro Array #8 3.86 0.61 54.49 183.80
El Centro Differential
5.09 0.35 75.54 147.36
Array
Holtville Post Office 7.50 0.26 53.11 109.12
El Centro Array #4 12.10 0.23 12.61 18.89
Imperial Valley-07
5.01 El Centro Array #5 11.2 0.22 11.11 20.33
(1979)
El Centro Array #6 10.3 0.16 13.91 30.09
Imperial Valley-08
5.62 Westmorland FireSta 9.76 0.11 11.95 32.17
(1979)
Antioch—510 GSt 32.10 0.11 6.91 15.58
Livermore-02
5.42 San Ramon Eastman
(1980)
18.20 0.28 22.96 60.97
Kodak
Anza (Horse
5.19 Borrego Air Ranch 40.60 0.05 3.25 6.88
Canyon, 1980)
6.06 Mammoth Creek 4.67 0.32 16.32 36.80
Convict Creek 9.46 0.16 11.62 41.12
Mammoth
5.69 Mammoth Lakes H.S. 9.12 0.39 24.16 42.74
Lake-02 (1980)
5.91 Convict Creek 12.40 0.23 19.82 70.09
Brawley Airport 15.40 0.16 12.67 47.60
Westmorland Parachute Test Site 16.70 0.23 55.55 124.18
5.90
(1981)
Westmorland Fire
6.50 0.38 44.12 179.55
Station
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 8 of 16

Table 2. Cont.

Peak Peak
Fault
Ground Ground
Earthquake Mw Station Distance SI (cm)
Acceleration Velocity
(km)
(g) (cm/s)
Anderson Dam
3.26 0.42 25.41 64.07
(Downstream)
Morgan Hill (1984) 6.19 Gilroy Array #7 12.00 0.19 7.33 20.03
Halls Valley 3.48 0.16 12.77 47.78
N. Palm Springs
6.06 North Palm Springs 4.04 0.69 65.99 204.23
(1986)
Chalfant Valley-01
5.77 Zack Brothers Ranch 6.39 0.27 23.53 53.78
(1986)
Poe Road (temp) 11.10 0.48 41.17 122.36
Superstition
6.54 Superstition Mtn
Hills-02 (1987)
5.61 0.58 23.95 69.31
Camera
Loma Prieta (1989) 6.93 Corralitos 3.85 0.65 55.97 156.52
Big Bear Lake—Civic
Big Bear-01 (1992) 6.46 8.30 0.55 34.51 72.38
Center
Kobe Japan (1995) 6.90 Nishi-Akashi 7.08 0.48 46.82 147.48
Dinar Turkey
6.40 Dinar 3.36 0.33 45.32 209.69
(1995)
Parkfield—Fault Zone 3 2.73 0.38 22.95 74.22
Parkfield-02 CA
6.00 Parkfield—Fault Zone 7 2.67 0.23 18.53 82.44
(2004)
Parkfield—Fault Zone 8 3.95 0.57 22.04 45.72

4. Seismic Vulnerability and Sensitivity Analysis

4.1. Development of Fragility Curve and Sensitivity Analysis

This research evaluates the seismic vulnerability of the old-school type RC structure, and analyzes
the sensitivity to uncertain material and sectional properties. The seismic vulnerability analysis is
defined as the conditional probability that the response of the structure exceeds the limit state function.
The reliable seismic vulnerability curve is generated using the Probabilistic Seismic Demand Model
(PSDM), which performs a regression analysis of the relationship between the Engineering Demand
Parameter (EDP) and Intensity Measure (IM) as shown in Equation (1):

SD = aIMb (1)

where SD : median value of structural demand corresponding to EDP, a and b: regression coefficients of
structural demands calculated from a nonlinear dynamic analysis. In this research, the ground motion
intensity, IM, is defined as spectral acceleration (Sa ), and the seismic response of the RC structure, EDP,
is defined as an interstory drift ratio at the global response level and shear demand of column at the
local response level. The PSDM performs linear regression by converting to the logarithmic function
as shown in Equation (2):
ln(SD ) = ln(a) + b· ln(IM) (2)

The defined structural demand and limit state function are assumed to be log-normally distributed.
Thus, seismic vulnerability is expressed as the lognormal distribution as shown in Equation (3):
   
 ln aIMb /Sc  ln(IM) − λ
 " #
P[D > C|IM] = Φ q

=Φ
 (3)
ξ
 
 β2 + β2 
d|IM c
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 9 of 16

where Φ[·]: the standard normal cumulative distribution function, Sc : median values of limit states,
βc : the dispersion of limit states, βd|IM : the standard deviations of demand for IM, λ: the logarithmic
median values of vulnerability, ξ: the dispersion of vulnerability. βc is generally 0.25–0.35.
The sensitivity analysis was performed using the Tornado Diagram Analysis (TDA) method
to evaluate the effect of uncertain variables on the structural response of the constructed analytical
models. The TDA method can be used if the uncertainty range of the input parameters is known.
It is a deterministic sensitivity analysis tool that evaluates the impact of uncertain variables. Many
researchers have adopted the TDA method to assess the effect of uncertain models and to determine
important variables [23,24]. Therefore, the sensitivity index of this research has been investigated using
lower and upper bounds, named the swing, in the exceedance probability of seismic vulnerability
corresponding to the analytical result of each uncertain model. The relative sensitivity of each variable,
(f0 c , fy ρl , and ρw ), has been evaluated by comparing the seismic vulnerability curves considering all
uncertain parameters using the collected swing for each damage level.

4.2. Effect on Global Response

Figure 7 presents the seismic vulnerability curves of the selected RC structures and sensitivity
swings for each uncertain variable. The solid line of each limit state shown in Figure 6 indicates the
fragility curve derived by considering all EDPs of each modeling group (e.g., the CS, YS, LR, and TR
models detailed in Table 1). For example, in the case of the CS models, all of the structural responses
from five RC frame models with different concrete strengths were considered to be the EDPs, and the
single fragility curve for the CS models was derived. The dotted line indicates the fragility curve of
the reference model. In particular, the seismic vulnerability of each group’s models was analyzed by
comparing it with that of the reference model.
As shown in Figure 7a, the seismic vulnerability of the CS models, which considers the uncertainty
of concrete strength, increased slightly at the lower value of Sa , when compared with that of the
reference model. However, it decreased at the higher value of Sa . Figure 7 also clearly indicates that
the sensitivity swings at the damage control and collapse prevention levels of the CS models were
higher than those of other groups. For example, for the CS model, the exceedance probability at an Sa
of 1.5 g of the collapse prevention state varied from 0.31 to 0.77, resulting in a swing of 0.46. However,
the corresponding swings of the YS and LR models were 0.06 and 0.05, respectively. Thus, the impact
of concrete strength on the structural response was significant when compared with other variables.
In addition, the width of the sensitivity swing of the CS models increased as the limit state changed
from the serviceability to collapse prevention level.
Figure 7b shows the seismic vulnerability of the YS group, which considers the varying yield
strength of longitudinal reinforcement. The sensitivity swings for the fragility curves of the YS model
were significantly lower than those of the CS models at the collapse prevention level. Conversely,
their swings were higher than those of other groups at the serviceability level. This is because the
serviceability level is defined when a longitudinal reinforcement reaches yielding, and thus it is
significantly affected by the yield strength variability. Furthermore, it was observed that the sensitivity
swings of LR models are notably lower than other groups except the serviceability level, indicating
less impact on the seismic vulnerability of RC frames (Figure 7c).
The fragility curves of TR models, which are associated with the variability in the volumetric ratio
of transverse reinforcement, are illustrated in Figure 7d. The results indicate the high sensitivity of
the selected uncertain variable to the seismic vulnerability of the TR models at the damage control
and collapse prevention level. The swing at an Sa of 1.5 g of the collapse prevention level is 0.4,
which indicates a significant impact on the structural response. In particular, the overall trend of their
sensitivity swings is similar to those of the CS models.
were higher than those of other groups. For example, for the CS model, the exceedance probability at
an Sa of 1.5 g of the collapse prevention state varied from 0.31 to 0.77, resulting in a swing of 0.46.
However, the corresponding swings of the YS and LR models were 0.06 and 0.05, respectively. Thus,
the impact of concrete strength on the structural response was significant when compared with other
variables.
Appl. In10,
Sci. 2020, addition,
8832 the width of the sensitivity swing of the CS models increased as the limit10state
of 16
changed from the serviceability to collapse prevention level.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 7.
Figure 7. The
The sensitivity
sensitivity swing
swing of
of the
the seismic
seismic vulnerability
vulnerability curve
curve at
at each
each the
the limit
limit state
state in
in the
the global
global
level: (a)
level: (a) concrete
concrete strength;
strength; (b)
(b) yield
yield strength;
strength; (c)
(c) longitudinal
longitudinal reinforcement ratio; (d)
reinforcement ratio; (d) volumetric
volumetric ratio
ratio
of transverse reinforcement.
of transverse reinforcement.

Figure 87b
Figure shows
shows thethe seismic
relative vulnerability
sensitivity of theproperties
of material YS group,and which considers
structural the on
details varying yield
the seismic
strength of longitudinal reinforcement. The sensitivity swings for the fragility curves of the YS
vulnerability curve at each limit state. The relative sensitivity is estimated as the ratio of the sensitivity model
were significantly
swing lower
of each variable to than thoseInofall
the sum. the CS models
cases, at the collapse
the sensitivity prevention
of concrete strengthlevel. Conversely,
was high at very
their swings were higher than those of other groups at the serviceability level. This is
low Sa , and those of the serviceability, damage control, and collapse prevention states decreased until because the
serviceability
the Sa reachedlevel
0.5 g,is0.78
defined
g, andwhen a longitudinal
1.15 g, respectively. reinforcement reaches
After that, it was yielding,
observed andsensitivity
that the thus it is
significantly
of affecteddominated,
concrete strength by the yield strength for
particularly variability.
the damageFurthermore,
control anditcollapse
was observed
preventionthatlimit
the
sensitivity swings of LR models are notably lower than other groups except the serviceability
states. In addition, the sensitivity of the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement was notably level,
indicating
high less impact
as it reached 0.4 on theSa
at an seismic
of 1.5vulnerability of RC prevention
g for the collapse frames (Figure
limit7c).
state. The corresponding
relative sensitivities of concrete strength, yield strength of rebar, and longitudinal rebar ratio were 0.47,
0.07, and 0.06. This is because the maximum confined stress and ultimate confined strain are mainly
affected by the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement, along with concrete strength. Note that
the damage control level is defined at the maximum confined stress and the collapse prevention level is
defined at the ultimate confined strain. Therefore, Figure 8 clearly shows that seismic vulnerability was
significantly affected by the concrete strength and volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement, while
 In addition, the sensitivity of the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement was notably high as it
reached 0.4 at an Sa of 1.5 g for the collapse prevention limit state. The corresponding relative
sensitivities of concrete strength, yield strength of rebar, and longitudinal rebar ratio were 0.47, 0.07,
and 0.06. This is because the maximum confined stress and ultimate confined strain are mainly
affected by the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement, along with concrete strength. Note that
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 11 of 16
the damage control level is defined at the maximum confined stress and the collapse prevention level
is defined at the ultimate confined strain. Therefore, Figure 8 clearly shows that seismic vulnerability
was significantly
the effect affected
of the variability ofby the concretereinforcement
longitudinal strength and volumetric
was ratherratio of transverseItreinforcement,
insignificant. can be concluded
while the effect of the variability of longitudinal reinforcement was rather insignificant. It can be
that securing the concrete strength quality and code-conforming stirrup spacing is very important to
concluded that securing the concrete strength quality and code-conforming stirrup spacing is very
prevent the jeopardy of structural safety.
important to prevent the jeopardy of structural safety.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure
Figure 8. Relativesensitivity
8. Relative sensitivity of
of uncertain
uncertainvariables on on
variables vulnerability curves:
vulnerability (a) serviceability;
curves: (b)
(a) serviceability;
damagecontrol;
(b) damage control; (c)
(c)collapse
collapseprevention.
prevention.

4.3. Effect on Member Response

The prototype structure of this study is an old school building reflecting the inadequate
construction practices of South Korea in the 1980s. The seismic vulnerability of this structure may
increase due to the attainment of member level limit states. The shear demand and capacity of a RC
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 12 of 16

4.3. Effect on Member Response

The prototype structure of this study is an old school building reflecting the inadequate construction
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15
practices of South Korea in the 1980s. The seismic vulnerability of this structure may increase due to
the attainment of member level limit states. The shear demand and capacity of a RC column were
Figure 9 clearly indicates that the likelihood of shear failure of RC members was much higher than
monitored to assess the seismic vulnerability at the local level. Shear demand was used as an EDP,
reaching the collapse prevention limit at the global level. Hence, local failure may occur before the
while the shear capacity was selected as a limit state function. Regarding the shear capacity of the RC
structural instability on the system level occurs, and thus the effect of construction quality defects on
column, the shear strength model by ACI 318-19 [25] was utilized.
the shear vulnerability of RC members should be considered for the selected structure.
Figure 9 compares the fragility curves at the global and local levels of the selected structure.
For each uncertain variable shown in Table 1, Figure 10 illustrates the fragility curve for the local
The exceedance probability of the serviceability limit state at the global level was always higher than
failure state and its sensitivity swing. Compared with other variables, it was observed that the effect
that of the shear failure state at the local level, which means the shear failure of the RC column does
of the variability in the concrete strength (𝑓 ) on the vulnerability curve was insignificant at the local
not occur until the longitudinal reinforcement yields. On the contrary, the exceedance probability of
level as opposed to the global level. However, variabilities in the yield strength (𝑓 ) and longitudinal
the shear failure state was higher than that of the damage control limit state until Sa reaches 0.64 g.
reinforcement ratio (𝜌 ) notably affect the local failure mode as shown in Figure 10b,c. These variables
Note that the design spectral acceleration in the Korean Building Code [26], corresponding to the
are related to the moment capacity of the RC column. The RC column with low yield strength and
fundamental period of the reference structure, was 0.64 g as shown in Figure 9. For the spectral
longitudinal reinforcement ratio attains the ultimate flexural strength before reaching the shear
acceleration of 0.64 g, the exceedance probability of the serviceability state was 83.5%, while those
capacity, resulting in a low probability of shear failure. Figure 10d clearly shows that the most
of the damage control and shear failure limit states were 30.7% and 30.9%, respectively. In addition,
significant effect on the shear vulnerability is due to the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement
Figure 9 clearly indicates that the likelihood of shear failure of RC members was much higher than
(𝜌 ), which is one of the governing parameters for the ductility and shear capacity of RC columns.
reaching the collapse prevention limit at the global level. Hence, local failure may occur before the
For example, in the fragility curve for 𝜌 , the exceedance probability at Sa of 1.0 g varied from 0.29
structural instability on the system level occurs, and thus the effect of construction quality defects on
to 0.66, resulting in a swing of 0.37, and the corresponding swing in the fragility curve for 𝑓 , 𝑓 , and
the shear vulnerability of RC members should be considered for the selected structure.
𝜌 were 0.03, 0.25, and 0.25.

Figure 9. Seismic
Figure9. Seismic vulnerability
vulnerability curves
curves at
at the
the global
global and
andlocal
locallevels.
levels.

For each uncertain variable shown in Table 1, Figure 10 illustrates the fragility curve for the
local failure state and its sensitivity swing. Compared with other variables, it was observed that the
effect of the variability in the concrete strength ( fc0 ) on the vulnerability curve was insignificant at
the local level as opposed to the global level. However, variabilities in the yield strength ( f y ) and
longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρl ) notably affect the local failure mode as shown in Figure 10b,c.
These variables are related to the moment capacity of the RC column. The RC column with low yield
strength and longitudinal reinforcement ratio attains the ultimate flexural strength before reaching the
shear capacity, resulting in a low probability of shear failure. Figure 10d clearly shows that the most
significant effect on the shear vulnerability is due to the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement
(ρw ), which is one of the governing parameters for the ductility and shear capacity of RC columns. For
example, in the fragility curve for ρw , the exceedance probability at Sa of 1.0 g varied from 0.29 to 0.66,

(a) (b)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 13 of 16

resulting in a swing Figure

of 0.37,9.and the corresponding swing in the fragility curve for f 0 , f , and ρl were
Seismic vulnerability curves at the global and local levels. c y
0.03, 0.25, and 0.25.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 10.
10. Sensitivity
Sensitivity swing
swing for
for shear
shear vulnerability
vulnerability curves:
curves: (a)
(a)concrete
concretestrength;
strength;(b)
(b)yield
yield strength;
strength;
(c)
(c) longitudinal
longitudinal reinforcement ratio; (d) volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement.

This observation
This observation cancan be
be confirmed
confirmed inin Figure
Figure 11,
11, which
which shows
shows the
the relative
relative sensitivity
sensitivity onon the
the shear
shear
vulnerability curve
vulnerability curve for
for the
the selected
selected uncertain
uncertain variables.
variables. ForFor instance,
instance, at an SSaa of
at an of 1.0
1.0 g,
g, the
the relative
relative
sensitivities of
sensitivities of rebar
rebar yield
yield strength,
strength, longitudinal
longitudinal rebar
rebar ratio,
ratio, and
and volumetric
volumetric ratio
ratioofofstirrup
stirrupwere
were0.28,
0.28,
0.28, and
0.28, and 0.41.
0.41. Thus,
Thus,these
thesethree
three parameters
parametersaffect
affect the
the shear
shear vulnerability
vulnerabilityalmost
almostequally.
equally. Therefore,
Therefore,
itit could
could be
be inferred
inferred that
that quality
quality control
control on
on these
these three
three parameters
parameters isis essential
essential toto avoid
avoid the
theshear
shearfailure
failure
of RC
of RC columns.
columns.
 This observation can be confirmed in Figure 11, which shows the relative sensitivity on the shear
vulnerability curve for the selected uncertain variables. For instance, at an Sa of 1.0 g, the relative
sensitivities of rebar yield strength, longitudinal rebar ratio, and volumetric ratio of stirrup were 0.28,
0.28, and 0.41. Thus, these three parameters affect the shear vulnerability almost equally. Therefore,
it could
Appl. be inferred
Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 that quality control on these three parameters is essential to avoid the shear failure
14 of 16
of RC columns.

Figure 11.
Figure Shear vulnerability
11. Shear vulnerability curve
curve and
and relative
relative sensitivity.
sensitivity.

5. Summary and Conclusions

5. Summary and Conclusions
The sensitivity of the fragility curve of an RC frame to material properties and structural detailing
The sensitivity of the fragility curve of an RC frame to material properties and structural
to the fragility curve of an RC frame was evaluated in this paper. The selected uncertain variables
detailing to the fragility curve of an RC frame was evaluated in this paper. The selected uncertain
considering the possible construction quality defects were concrete strength, yield strength of rebar,
variables considering the possible construction quality defects were concrete strength, yield strength
longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement. The vulnerability
of rebar, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement. The
curve for each limit state at the global and local levels was derived from the extensive nonlinear
vulnerability curve for each limit state at the global and local levels was derived from the extensive
dynamic analyses with 17 RC frame models. The results of the sensitivity analysis identify the uncertain
nonlinear dynamic analyses with 17 RC frame models. The results of the sensitivity analysis identify
variables that most significantly affected the seismic response of the selected structures. The important
the uncertain variables that most significantly affected the seismic response of the selected structures.
findings are summarized below.
The important findings are summarized below.
It was observed that the fluctuation of the vulnerability curves was significant at the damage
It was observed that the fluctuation of the vulnerability curves was significant at the damage
control and collapse prevention limit states when concrete strength was considered as an uncertain
control and collapse prevention limit states when concrete strength was considered as an uncertain
variable. The magnitude of this fluctuation, named swing, was much higher than those of models
with uncertainties related to the longitudinal reinforcement. The swing of the fragility curves with
the uncertainty in the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement also increased notably. These
results are clearly confirmed through relative sensitivity analysis. Thus, the seismic vulnerability at the
global level was found to be particularly sensitive to the concrete strength and the volumetric ratio of
transverse reinforcement.
The selected structure was identified to be susceptible to failure at the system level as well as
the member level. Thus, the impact of the selected uncertain variables on the shear vulnerability
of an RC column was assessed at the local level. It was observed that the shear vulnerability was
very sensitive to the rebar yield strength, longitudinal rebar ratio, and volumetric ratio of stirrups.
Particularly, the most significant effect on shear vulnerability was due to the volumetric ratio of the
transverse reinforcement.
In conclusion, the seismic vulnerability of the selected RC frame was mainly affected by variability
in concrete strength and the volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement. Therefore, securing the
proper construction quality of these parameters is critical for the reliable seismic performance of an
RC frame.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.K. and S.J.K.; methodology, S.K.; investigation, S.K. and T.M.;
writing—original draft preparation, S.K.; writing—review and editing, S.J.K.; supervision, S.J.K. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by a grant (20DRMS-B146826-03) from the Development of Customized
Contents Provision Technology for Realistic Disaster Management Based on Spatial Information Program, funded
by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety of the Korean government.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 15 of 16

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Tsai, K.C.; Hsiao, C.P.; Bruneau, M. Overview of building damages in 921 Chi-Chi earthquake. Earthq. Eng.
Eng. Seismol. 2000, 2, 93–108.
2. Elnashai, A.S.; Gencturk, B.; Kwon, O.S.; Hashash, Y.M.; Kim, S.J.; Jeong, S.H.; Dukes, J. The Maule (Chile)
earthquake of February 27, 2010: Development of hazard, site specific ground motions and back-analysis of
structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 42, 229–245. [CrossRef]
3. Park, S.H.; Kim, S.; Kim, S.J.; Chang, C.; Yang, J.M. Performance evaluation of RC columns with an aramid
fiber reinforced permanent form. J. Korean Soc. Adv. Compos. Struct. 2019, 10, 1–7.
4. Chen, L.; Lu, X.; Jiang, H.; Zheng, J. Experimental investigation of damage behavior of RC frame members
including non-seismically designed columns. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2009, 8, 301–311. [CrossRef]
5. Azam, R.; Soudki, K.; West, J.S.; Noël, M. Strengthening of shear-critical RC beams: Alternatives to externally
bonded CFRP sheets. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 151, 494–503. [CrossRef]
6. Chalioris, C.E.; Favvata, M.J.; Karayannis, C.G. Reinforced concrete beam-column joints with crossed inclined
bars under cyclic deformations. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2008, 37, 881–897. [CrossRef]
7. Lu, X.; Urukap, T.H.; Li, S.; Lin, F. Seismic behavior of interior RC beam-column joints with additional bars
under cyclic loading. Earthq. Struct. 2012, 3, 37–57. [CrossRef]
8. Chalioris, C.E.; Bantilas, K.E. Shear strength of reinforced concrete beam-column joints with crossed inclined
bars. Eng. Struct. 2017, 140, 241–255. [CrossRef]
9. Kim, J.; Han, S. Sensitivity analysis for seismic response of reinforced concrete staggered wall structures.
Mag. Concr. Res. 2013, 65, 1348–1359. [CrossRef]
10. D’Ayala, D.; Meslem, A. Derivation of analytical fragility functions considering modelling uncertainties.
In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability—ICOSSAR13,
New York, NY, USA, 16–20 June 2013.
11. Pang, Y.; Wu, X.; Shen, G.; Yuan, W. Seismic fragility analysis of cable-stayed bridges considering different
sources of uncertainties. J. Bridge Eng. 2014, 19, 04013015. [CrossRef]
12. Moon, D.S.; Lee, Y.J.; Lee, S. Fragility analysis of space reinforced concrete frame structures with structural
irregularity in plan. J. Struct. Eng. 2018, 144, 04018096. [CrossRef]
13. Lee, T.H.; Mosalam, K.M. Seismic demand sensitivity of reinforced concrete shear-wall building using FOSM
method. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2005, 34, 1719–1736. [CrossRef]
14. Kwon, O.S.; Elnashai, A. The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability
curves of RC structure. Eng. Struct. 2006, 28, 289–303. [CrossRef]
15. Padgett, J.E.; DesRoches, R.F. Sensitivity of seismic response and fragility to parameter uncertainty. J. Struct.
Eng. 2007, 133, 1710–1718. [CrossRef]
16. Pan, H.; Tian, L.; Fu, X.; Li, H. Sensitivity of the seismic response and fragility estimate of a transmission
tower to structural and ground motion uncertainties. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 167, 105941. [CrossRef]
17. Rajeev, P.; Tesfamariam, S. Effect of construction quality variability on seismic fragility of reinforced concrete
building. In Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering Structure Building and
Earthquake-Resilient Society, Auckland, New Zealand, 14–16 April 2011.
18. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Available online: https://opensees.berkeley.edu
(accessed on 1 July 2018).
19. Mander, J.B.; Priestley, M.J.; Park, R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J. Struct. Eng.
1988, 114, 1804–1826. [CrossRef]
20. Kim, S.; Kim, S.J.; Chang, C. Analytical assessment of the effect of vertical ground motion on RC frames
designed for gravity loads with various geometric configurations. Adv. Civil. Eng. 2018. [CrossRef]
21. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for
Buildings; EN 1998-1; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
22. Casolo, S. A numerical study on the cumulative out-of-plane damage to church masonry façades due to a
sequence of strong ground motions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2017, 46, 2717–2737. [CrossRef]
23. Kim, J.; Park, J.H.; Lee, T.H. Sensitivity analysis of steel buildings subjected to column loss. Eng. Struct. 2011,
33, 421–432. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8832 16 of 16

24. Hammad, A.; Moustafa, M.A. Modeling sensitivity analysis of special concentrically braced frames under
short and long duration ground motions. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 128, 105867. [CrossRef]
25. ACI 318-19. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary; American Concrete Institute:
Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2019.
26. Seismic Building Design Code (KDS 41 17 00); Korean Design Standard; Ministry of Land: Seoul, Korea, 2019.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).