Probabilistic Seismic Vulnerability of

Indian Code-Compliant RC Frame

Kaushik Gondaliya 1; Vishisht Bhaiya 2; Sandip Vasanwala 3; and Atul Desai 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat" on 05/06/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The study’s primary purpose is to compare the analysis procedures of simple deterministic and comprehensive probabilistic
techniques. Nonlinear static pushover analysis is considered to assess the RC frame’s seismic response and evaluate the influence of uncer-
tainties in the material’s mechanical properties on the seismic response. A simulation-based procedure was adopted to generate a fragility curve
for a 4-story RC frame building designed per the Indian standard for Seismic zone V. The traditional, straightforward deterministic approach
was used to calculate the spectral displacement from the derived capacity curve. The thresholds for the different limit states, namely, slight,
moderate, extensive, and complete damage, were determined. The concrete and steel strength properties were taken as the random variables.
The structural response of the RC frame was analyzed using the Monte Carlo approach. The obtained results show an increase in the uncertainty
and structural responses in the probabilistic analysis compared with the deterministic technique. The importance of approaching the building’s
fragility and expected damage assessment concerns from a probabilistic perspective is a crucial finding of this study. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
SC.1943-5576.0000708. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Mechanical properties; RC frame; Seismic fragility; Probabilistic analysis; Uncertainty.

Introduction Studies emphasize the critical nature of utilizing a stochastic

Earthquakes, floods, and cyclones are among the most dangerous
natural disasters regarding property and human loss. Over the past
two decades, performance-based seismic design has been the most
effective method for reducing the effect of these natural disasters.
Several performance-based design approaches were established to
minimize structural damage. Recent earthquakes in India have
exposed a design deficiency in existing RC buildings. Structures
have failed to provide the desired ductile behavior as per the design
(Humar et al. 2001; Jain et al. 2001).
The evaluation of the seismic response of RC frames using deter-
ministic analysis does not consider the aleatory uncertainty in the re-
sponse parameters. Aleatory uncertainty is the natural phenomenon
presenting the randomness in the ground motion in terms of direction,
intensity, magnitude, and distance from the site location. Many
researchers have modeled aleatory-type uncertainty and reduced it
using the incremental dynamics analysis (IDA) approach (Choudhury
and Kaushik 2018b; Surana et al. 2018; Baker 2007, 2015).
Meanwhile, the work on epistemic uncertainty has been
minimal and is summarized as follows:
1 2017; Rajeev and Tesfamariam 2012), has the potential to modify the
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai
National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India (corre-
sponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3195-9743. Email:
d19am007@amd.svnit.ac.in
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai
National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India. Email:
vishisht@amd.svnit.ac.in
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Insti-
tute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India. Email: sav@amd.svnit.ac.in
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai National
Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India. Email: akd@amd
.svnit.ac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 21, 2021; approved on
February 28, 2022; published online on May 7, 2022. Discussion period
open until October 7, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Structural
Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
approach for assessing seismic vulnerability and discuss numerous
difficulties related to the effect of epistemic uncertainty on seismic
vulnerability assessment models (Aguilar-Meléndez et al. 2019;
Franchin et al. 2010; Straub and Der Kiureghian 2008; Vargas-
Alzate et al. 2020). Several examples of epistemic uncertainty in-
clude factors related to material properties, structural member
geometry, strain hardening, and ultimate strength of steel. Random
variables are used to determine the probabilistic seismic vulnerabil-
ity of structures. Seismic designed standards suggest decreased
material strength and increased seismic load overcome excessive
material variability in a deterministic manner. However, increasing
the severity of the expected seismic action and decreasing strength
parameters do not assure the reliability of the response. Therefore,
it is necessary to conduct structural analysis and vulnerability
evaluation using probabilistic analysis.
RC frame buildings have been the subject of interest for dif-
ferent parameters using probabilistic evaluation methods. The un-
certainty in various input variables, such as gravitational and lateral
loading (Silva et al. 2014), material and geometry nonlinearity
(Choudhury and Kaushik 2019), infill wall opening (Choudhury and
Kaushik 2018a), and plan and elevation irregularities (Bhosale et al.
structure’s seismic response. Manafpour and Moghaddam (2014) re-
viewed the pros and cons of the probabilistic performance-based
analysis on the RC frame building. Vargas et al. (2013, 2018) derived
a probabilistic seismic damage curve for low-rise and mid-rise RC
frame buildings using incremental pushover analysis. The determin-
istic and probabilistic design methods using incremental pushover
and dynamic analyses were also compared. Rizzano and Tolone
(2009) evaluated a methodology for the seismic reliability-based
probabilistic approach of bare RC frame.
A review of previous research reveals that several variables
have been used to check the sensitivity of structure lateral response,
with no apparent consensus. However, the effects of uncertainty on
the characteristic strength of concrete (f ck ) and yield strength of
steel (fy ) on the structural response of RC buildings have been
found to be greater compared with other parameters (Choudhury

© ASCE 04022028-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(3): 04022028

 and Kaushik 2018b; Jeong et al. 2012; Vargas-Alzate et al. 2019; Table 1. Details of selected mechanical properties used for Monte-Carlo
Vargas et al. 2018; Xue and Le 2016). Keeping this in view, in the simulation
present study, SAP2000 (CSI 2021) object-oriented application pro- Variable Mean (μ) SD (σ) CV Distribution
gramming interface (OAPI) ability was used with the programming
fc 25 3.11 0.12 Normal
language Python v3.7.4 for the computations involved in probabi- fy 500 17.26 0.04 Lognormal
listic analyses of the RC frame building. A simplified method for
computing the probabilistic fragility curve (PFC) is provided in this Note: SD = standard deviation, lognormal random number generated using
paper, along with a more efficient methodology based on stiffness Wessa et al. (2021).
reduction and energy of the nonlinear part of the capacity curve [as
suggested in ATC-40 (Comartin et al. 1996)]. The PFC created us- were calculated as a function of the explicitly considered random
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat" on 05/06/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing this simplified probabilistic approach was compared to the deter-
ministic approach with appropriate precision. For a mid-rise 4-story
RC frame building, the effectiveness of the simplified strategy was
evaluated. The probabilistic computations given for random varia-
bles were done using the Monte Carlo approach. The variability and
uncertainty in demand and capacity assessment were examined in
detail concerning the RC frame structural system.
Mathematical Modeling and Vulnerability Assessment
of the RC Frame
In this study, a 4-story RC frame building was designed using stan-
dard deterministic methods and then analyzed using both determin-
istic and probabilistic methods. The nonlinear static pushover analysis
(NSPA) technique was used to investigate the fragility of a selected
4-story RC building frame. The following subsections cover the math-
ematical modeling and design of the RC frame, NSPA technique, con-
version of NSPA curve into capacity spectra as per ATC-40 (Comartin
et al. 1996), and the damage index (DSm ) examined in the study.
variables. In the present study, f ck is a random variable, and elastic
modulus of concrete (Ec ) is an explicitly random variable; Ec is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
calculated by Ec ¼ 5,000 fck, the Young’s modulus of steel (Es )
has the standard value of Es ¼ 2 × 105 N=mm2 as per IS 456 (BIS
2000), and the only random variable is the yield strength value of
the rebar Fe500.
In this study, each floor of the structural member beam/column
of the building was divided into four groups, each corresponding to
each floor. The total correlation matrix was used to consider the
correlation among the samples (Vargas Alzate et al. 2018). This high
correlation was considered among the sample generated for the
column/beam belonging to the same group, but the correlation
among the sample of different groups was considered null. This
way, a kind of spatial variability of randomness was also considered.
A random sample of variable value was generated in each repetition
of Monte Carlo techniques for each element, column, and beam of
any group (Vargas-Alzate et al. 2019). Fig. 1 shows the distribution
of the selected random values of the mechanical strength properties.

Mechanical Properties of the Material Description of the Study RC Frame

The probabilistic analysis of RC frame building considered the ef- A 4-story special moment resisting RC frame building was used as
fects of epistemic uncertainty caused by material mechanical prop- research object; the geometrical model of the structural frame was
erties. In this regard, the mechanical properties of the materials were considered, and rebar detailing is shown in Fig. 2. The RC frame
considered one of the primary sources of uncertainty. Their impact had a bay width of 4 m; the ground and upper stories were 3.5 m in
was determined by various factors related to the structure itself, in- height. The total weight of the infill walls was taken into account at
cluding the site location, material quality and water purity, concrete
mixing method, building provision, concrete cracking and crushing,
strain hardening, and adopted building standards. Time was consid-
ered a variable as it plays an essential role in determining mechani-
cal properties. The compressive strength of the concrete was also
considered for its impact on the Young’s modulus of concrete (Ec ).
Based on reported values, relationships in several available sources
(Choudhury and Kaushik 2019), and expert opinion, an appropriate
and credible set of values for the mechanical properties of interest
was found (Ranganathan 1999). While inconsistency of distribution
was noticed in the yield strength (fy ) of steel due to the random var-
iable, the lognormal distribution adhered to the premise that, rather
than seeing the original raw data distributed normally, the logarithms
the raw data generated are likewise normally distributed.
The material properties used in this study were the characteristic
strength of concrete (f ck ), with a compressive strength of 25 MPa,
and of steel rebar, with a yield strength of 500 MPa and a modulus
of elasticity of 200 GPa. The Monte Carlo method derived the ran-
domness in the mechanical structural strength (Hurtado and Barbat
1998). Besides the mean values for the compressive strength of con-
crete and steel, a confidence interval of 95% (0.95) was established
as suggested by IS 456 (BIS 2000) since its corresponding critical
values closely resemble the lower and upper bounds for this vari-
able, as shown in Table 1.
The random variables that mainly affect the direct response’s
Fig. 1. Consideration of random values for the characteristic strengths
uncertainty were considered. Nonetheless, the uncertainty of sev-
of concrete and steel in the current study.
eral structural variables was taken into account indirectly as they

© ASCE 04022028-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(3): 04022028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat" on 05/06/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. RC frame considered for current study: (a) plan; (b) elevation; (c) rebar detailing of beam; and (d) rebar detailing of column.

Fig. 3. Comparison of the deterministic and probabilistic approaches for the selected RC frame building: (a) pushover curve; and (b) capacity
curve.

© ASCE 04022028-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(3): 04022028

 all levels to reflect a widely used study and design technique that
ignores the strength and stiffness of masonry infill walls. The build-
ing’s center frame was chosen to develop a fragility curve for pre-
defined damage states, then used to calculate the building’s overall
reaction. According to IS 875, gravity loads were classified as dead
(BIS 1987a) or live (BIS 1987b); seismic loads and ductile detail-
ing were classified as per IS 1893 (BIS 2016a) and IS 13920 (BIS
2016b), respectively. The self-weights of beams, columns, slabs,
and walls were considered a dead load. The slab, internal, and ex-
ternal walls had thicknesses of 125, 115, and 230 mm, respectively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat" on 05/06/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
method (CSM) enables a simplified, straightforward assessment
of the spectral displacement caused by a given earthquake, as de-
scribed by its 5% damped elastic response spectrum, to a given
building. Furthermore, capacity spectra are often implied to describe
fragility curves, quantifying expected seismic damage and structure
risk. The fragility curve defines a correlation between the probabil-
ity of failure and spectral displacement (Sd ). In the present study, the
CSM technique suggested by Barbat et al. (2006, 2010) was adopted
to find the total uncertainty and most likely damage grade in the
structure. A fragility curve provides the probability of reaching or

Live loads of 3 and 0.75 kN=m2 were used for stories and roofs, exceeding a given damage state as a function of a parameter, spectral
respectively. NSPA was conducted under the factored gravity load displacement (Sd ), describing the seismic action to which the build-
combination (equal to DL þ 0.25 × LL, where DL = dead load and ing is subjected up to a given damage state. The following lognor-
LL = live load) and static lateral forces. Different researchers have mal probability density function equation is commonly assumed to
proposed several plastic hinge lengths. In this study, plastic hinge describe fragility curves accurately:
length was calculated according to Eq. (1) by Priestley et al. (1996)   
1 Sd
pk ðSd Þ ¼ P½DS ≥ DSk jSd  ¼ Φ ln ð3Þ
Lp ¼ 0.08L þ 0.022f y db ð1Þ βk Sd;ds
where L = length of the member in meters (taken at the point of where Sd = spectral displacement; Sd;ds = mean spectral displace-
contra flexure from the end); db = diameter of longitudinal reinforce- ment where a building reaches the damage grade threshold; β k =
ment in meters; and f y = yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement standard deviation of a natural logarithm of spectral displacement
in megapascals. Plastic hinges (only flexural) were assumed to form for damage grades; and Φ = standard normal cumulative distribution
at a distance of lp =2 from the face of beams and columns. The ver- function. The CSM approach was found efficient in measuring the
tical distribution of the lateral force (Fx ) at each story level (x) seismic vulnerability (Choudhury and Kaushik 2018a; Pujades et al.
should be in proportion to the fundamental mode shape of the RC 2012; Vargas Alzate et al. 2018). The following is a damage grade
frame building model using Eq. (2) according to IS 1893 Part 1 threshold derived from the building structure’s yielding and ultimate
(BIS 2016a) spectral displacement (FEMA 2018):
W h2 8
Qi ¼ Pn i i 2 V d ð2Þ >
> Sd1 ¼ 0.7Dy slight damage state
>
>
i¼1 W i hi <S ¼ D moderate damage state
d2 y
where Qi = seismic design force at the ith floor; W i = seismic Sd;k ¼
> Sd3 ¼ Dy þ 0.25ðDu − Dy Þ severe damage state
>
weight at the ith floor; and hi = ith floor measured from the base. >
>
:
Ahead of the incremental seismic forces, the vertical building loads Sd4 ¼ Du complete damage state
were allocated. Conversion of the capacity curve as per ATC-40 ð4Þ
was done using the powerful toolkit package provided by the
SAP2000 software (CSI 2021). Pushover analysis was performed where Dy and Du = yield spectral displacement and ultimate spec-
as per ASCE/SEI 41-13 (ASCE 2017) guidelines. Fig. 3(a) shows tral displacement of the capacity curve, respectively. It is crucial
1,000 pushover curves obtained using the probabilistic approach to define the performance limit criteria for the structure’s response.
compared with those acquired using the deterministic approach. The The obtained results from the pushover analysis were converted into
ultimate displacement value of the deterministic curve is 35.71% acceleration displacement response spectra (ADRS) format to de-
more prominent than the ultimate displacement value of some other rive the performance point at Zone V [peak ground acceleration
probabilistic pushover curve. This is because the conventional deter- (PGA)-0.36g], which was the most likely response of the considered
ministic analytical method overestimates the ductility of the selected RC frame building during the earthquake, and the probability of
RC frame. In this case, the probabilistic strategy assumes that no exceedance was determined in subsequent steps. Structural analysis
member group will have the same strength. This correlation of the software SAP2000 effectively converted the pushover curve into a
mean mechanical strength of each group will be unique, and it will capacity curve using Hazus methodology and ATC-40 guidelines by
have a significant effect on the structure’s lateral response (Fig. 3). defining two pushover mode factors:
P
½ Ni¼1 ðW i · Φ2ip Þ=g2
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of RC Frame α1 ¼ P N P
½ i¼1 ðW i Þ=g½ Ni¼1 ðW i · Φ2ip Þ=g
The current section uses deterministic and probabilistic approaches
to derive fragility curves for the selected RC frames. Capacity PN
X
N
ðW i · Φ2ip Þ=g
spectra are the acceleration-displacement representations of capac- α2 ¼ PN i¼1
ity curves obtained by pushover analysis. The capacity spectrum i¼1
½ i¼1 ðW i · Φip Þ=gφcp;p

Table 2. Probabilities of the expecting damage grade using deterministic analysis method after fixing 50% probability for each damage state, damage index
intervals, mean, and uncertainty
Damage states Damage index Fixing condition d DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 Mean (mm) Uncertainty (β)
Slight 0.5–1.5 ρ1 ¼ 0.5 0.21 0.500 0.256 0.081 0.018 53.9 0.33
Moderate 1.5–2.5 ρ2 ¼ 0.5 0.39 0.818 0.500 0.183 0.043 77 0.35
Severe 2.5–3.5 ρ3 ¼ 0.5 0.63 0.995 0.884 0.500 0.152 109.25 0.44
Complete 3.5–4.0 ρ4 ¼ 0.5 0.85 1.000 0.999 0.911 0.500 206 0.60

© ASCE 04022028-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(3): 04022028

 where W i =g = mass assigned to the ith degree of freedom;
Φip = amplitude of pushover mode at the ith degree of freedom; and
Φcp;p = amplitude of pushover mode at control point. These two-
pushover mode variables were used directly to obtain the capacity
spectrum from the pushover curve, where the spectral displacement
(α2 × Δcp ) and spectral acceleration [ðV=WÞ=α1 ] were determined
at each point. Performance points were found with the capacity spec-
trum method by taking an intersection point of the demand curve and
capacity curve derived by the iterative procedure known as Procedure
A of equivalent deformation of ATC-40 (Comartin et al. 1996). The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat" on 05/06/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

performance-point calculation at a particular seismic hazard DBE

and MCE levels for Surat City’s seismic zone, medium-soil type,
and 5% damped elastic response spectrum was done as per ATC-40.
Fig. 3(b) shows the capacity spectrum derived for the deterministic
and probabilistic approaches. The mean curve is shown for the
multiple capacity spectra’s yield and ultimate spectral displacement
from the probabilistic approach and then compared with the deter-
ministic approach. Using the capacity spectrum method, Lantada
et al. (2009) and Barbat et al. (2008) computed seismic demand
and predicted total uncertainty in the structure. The spectral dis-
placement (Sd ) was assumed to follow a binomial probability dis-
tribution, as defined in Eq. (5), to estimate the value of β k

Pk ¼ PðDS ¼ DSk Þ ¼ Pk ðN; dÞ

n−1  n − 1 
X
¼ dk ð1 − dÞn−1−k ; k ¼ 0; : : : ; ðN − 1Þ ð5Þ
k¼0 k

The number of damage grades is denoted as N, taken as 5 in this

study. The value of d ¼ DSm =N − 1 represents damage level, whose
range is taken as 0–1. The mean damage index is indicated by DSm.
The value of d ¼ 0 indicates no damage in a structure; however, this
indicates complete damage in a frame.
Eq. (3) is fitted to the obtained point through Eq. (5) through the
least-square criterion. Table 2 presents the particular damage grades
fixed at 50%, in which parameter d controls an assumed binomial
probability distribution. Fig. 4 shows an example of fragility curves
obtained through the probabilistic method. It shows the probability
of expecting damage grade while fixing a 50% probability for a
sample 4-story RC frame building.
The likelihood of exceedance (Pk ) was determined through the
seismic hazard specification of a designed RC frame building. It
was done through fragility curves by selecting the probability of
exceedance at a corresponding performance-point spectral displace-
ment (Sd ) (Table 2). Thus, each damage state’s probability of oc-
currence (pk ) is obtained from the corresponding fragility curves by

Table 3. Statistical parameter details showed for input and output variables
Parameters Min Mean Max SD CV
fy (MPa) 445.86 499.82 559.15 17.39 0.03
fck (MPa) 20.17 25.01 30.43 1.57 0.05
Ductility 1.12 2.25 4.10 0.73 0.18
Stiffness (kN=m) 8,209.32 9,867.24 11,383.41 483.64 0.04
Sd1 (m) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00
Sd2 (m) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00
Sd3 (m) 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.14
Sd4 (m) 0.04 0.09 0.16 0.03 0.19
β1 0.79 0.99 1.00 0.04 0.04
β2 0.10 0.51 0.66 0.15 0.23
β3 0.10 0.67 0.78 0.15 0.19
Fig. 4. Fragility curve for the probabilistic values considered for β4 0.66 0.81 0.93 0.09 0.10
the characteristic strengths of concrete and steel: (a) slight damage; DI 0.61 1.72 2.64 0.47 0.18
(b) moderate damage; (c) severe damage; and (d) complete damage.
Note: SD = standard deviation; and DI = damage index.

© ASCE 04022028-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(3): 04022028

 subtracting the obtained succeeding damage state exceedance prob-
ability. This probability of exceedance value was generated for the
optimum beta (β̂) value utilizing residual Eq. (6) to estimate a fra-
gility function by minimizing the sum of squared errors (SSE) be-
tween normal (continuous) and binomial (discrete) distributions
!2
X
m X
N
β̂ ¼ arg min pk − kPk ðN; dÞ ð6Þ
β k¼1 k¼0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat" on 05/06/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The fragility curves are presented using the estimated optimized

beta values (Fig. 4). These graphs show a probability of exceed-
ance range for random mechanical properties of materials chosen
to evaluate the seismic response of a 4-story RC frame building.
For seismic demand at the elastic design response earthquake
(DBE) and maximum considered earthquake (MCE) levels, the
Fig. 5. Pearson correlation matrix: input and output variables.
more likely damage state was quantified using Eq. (7). The most

Fig. 6. Elastic stiffness and ductility values for corresponding mechanical strength properties of steel and concrete (Zone V): (a) DBE; and (b) MCE.

© ASCE 04022028-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(3): 04022028

 probable damage state of the building can be represented using a
single parameter called weighted mean damage index, DSm

X
4
DSm ¼ kpk ðN; dÞ ð7Þ
i¼1

where k ¼ 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 depends on damage state k considered;

and pk ðN; dÞ = occurrence probabilities of given damage state. The
most likely damage state as a function of the mean damage index
range and all other feature class statistical properties are shown in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat" on 05/06/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. DSm represents the possible damage state of the building

during a given seismic hazard. For instance, DSm ¼ 1.8 indicate the
most likely damage state would be moderate. The fragility curve of
an RC frame structure can be derived by using a function based on
the three parameters, i.e., the seismic response of the structure, also
known as engineering demand parameter (EDP), a mean value con-
sidered for EDP and uncertainty (β). The value of the uncertainty
factor indicates the degree of confidence in the predicted damage for
the structure. The higher the value, the more likely the estimation
will be unreliable. Statistically, the value of mean divided by uncer-
tainty, known as the coefficient of variance (CV), should be 0.15–
0.25 to produce better results (Kennedy et al. 1980; Zentner et al.
2017). A CV less than 0.20 causes the overfitting in the model and
higher than 0.25 gives unrealistic and unreliable probability values.

Results and Discussion

The most important outcomes of the probabilistic technique are
compared and discussed in this section. Furthermore, an example of
how probabilistic approaches might be used to assess the expected
seismic damage and risk of existing buildings is shown. The object-
oriented application programming interface of SAP2000, available
through the programming language Python, was used to simulate
1,000 mathematical models and run and collect their capacity spec-
trum data. Python (Van Rossum and Drake 2009) has an extensive
library for data administration, manipulation, and visualization. The
following are the key results of the current investigation concerning
the 4-story RC frame structure:
• When comparing the frame analyses using a deterministic tech-
nique to a similar frame studied using a probabilistic approach,
the deterministic approach shows a reduction in initial elastic
stiffness of roughly 31.86% [Fig. 3(a)].
• The stochastic analysis of the designed special moment-resisting
RC frame building revealed significant changes in the structure’s
nonlinear response under seismic loading and significantly af-
Fig. 7. Comparison of elastic stiffness and ductility observed for
fected the structural members’ failure mechanism.
various damage states: (a) DBE; and (b) MCE.
• The deterministic analytical approach overstated the ultimate
spectral displacement (Sd4 ), 190 mm. However, the probabilistic
analysis revealed a spectrum displacement of 160 mm, as shown
in Table 3.
• In a probabilistic approach, the probability of the structure col- characteristic strengths of steel and concrete with the elastic stiffness
lapsing before this value is much higher than in a traditional de- and ductility of the selected RC frame.
terministic approach. As per FEMA P-695 (FEMA 2009), The Key capacity curve parameters derived from Monte Carlo sim-
average collapse probability of a collection of prototype models ulations are random. Fig. 7 illustrates the relationship between duc-
during seismic forces equivalent to MCE should be less than tility and elastic stiffness; each dot represents an independent RC
10%. Both approaches are expected to meet this average limit, frame model; the higher the ductile model, the more minor the dam-
provided that each random model does not collapse at probabil- age (slight or moderate), and the higher the stiff structure, the more
ities exceeding this value. At MCE, the probability of any indi- severe the damage. Fig. 8 shows a broader range of upper-level
vidual model collapsing is limited to 20%. damage states due to the higher dispersion and variability associ-
Fig. 5 represents the Pearson correlation matrix for the simu- ated with the seismic MCE demand level; as demand decreases, the
lated input and output variables considered in the study. Tableau probability of exceedance decreases in dispersion and variability.
version 2021.1 was utilized for more accurate and enhanced data Fig. 9 compares the fragility curves derived using deterministic
visualization. Fig. 6 represents the correlation charts between the and probabilistic analysis methodology for the selected RC frame

© ASCE 04022028-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(3): 04022028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat" on 05/06/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Probability of exceedance for various damage states compared with input parameters: (a) DBE; and (b) MCE.

building. As the spectral displacement of performance-point value
increases, RC frame building assessment using a deterministic ap-
proach was observed to provide a conservative side of likelihood.
For instance, the 100-mm performance point for a 4-story RC frame
building shows 10% and 30% complete damage probability of ex-
ceedance for deterministic and probabilistic analytical approaches,
respectively. For complete damage states, the probability of exceed-
ing the estimated value is more significant in the probabilistic
approach than FEMA P695 (FEMA 2009) prescribes.
Conclusion
The vulnerability of RC frame building was evaluated by taking
into account mechanical strength properties, namely, characteristic
strength of concrete and yield strength of steel. The input variables
are randomly selected in the predefined distribution range. The
approach to evaluating the expected damage of a midrise 4-story
RC frame building is analyzed based on the NSPA. One of the sig-
nificant outcomes of the present study is predicting probabilistic
seismic vulnerability scenarios for DBE and MCE earthquake
intensities:
• From the extensive analytical work, NSPA results show consid-
erable uncertainty when the input variables are random. As a re-
sult, the parameters influencing the seismic fragility curves and
mean damage state of structures must be regarded as random.
• Simplified deterministic processes based on mean characteristic
values typically yield conservative conclusions. However, some
abridged assumptions on the definition of seismic damage states
and thresholds can potentially result in underestimating the
actual possible damage.

© ASCE 04022028-8 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(3): 04022028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat" on 05/06/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. (a) Deterministic; and (b) probabilistic analytical approaches used to derive fragility curves varying mechanical properties of the selected
RC frame building.

• From the ductility and elastic stiffness probabilistic analysis of
the studied representative RC frame building, it was confirmed
that the behavior of the structure is assumed to be more ductile
in the deterministic analysis approach.
The correlation matrices between the input and the response
variables can be helpful to gain insight into the seismic vul-
nerability of RC frame building based on random characteristic
values of the mechanical properties of the RC frame. The cu-
rrent procedure demonstrated on the selected RC frame build-
ing can be extended to assess the seismic response of other
low- and high-rise RC frame buildings. The method for devel-
oping a predictive tool recommended here can be used to derive
the fragility curve and detect the mean damage index of RC
buildings.

Appendix. Data Set Used to Develop the Correlation Matrix for DBE Seismic Demand Level

Serial number fy f ck Ductility Stiffness Sd1 Sd2 Sd3 Sd4 β1 β2 β3 β4 DI Damage

1 447.82 22.78 1.21 8,209.32 0.0299 0.0428 0.0439 0.0474 1.00 0.64 0.65 0.66 2.34 Moderate
2 502.76 25.81 2.40 9,915.69 0.0294 0.0420 0.0553 0.0951 1.00 0.56 0.72 0.86 1.66 Moderate
3 485.06 26.34 1.36 10,070.91 0.0292 0.0417 0.0443 0.0519 1.00 0.63 0.66 0.70 2.29 Moderate
4 515.07 23.37 2.74 10,026.35 0.0293 0.0419 0.0585 0.1086 1.00 0.44 0.75 0.89 1.50 Slight
5 503.71 22.13 1.29 9,085.98 0.0295 0.0422 0.0440 0.0496 1.00 0.64 0.66 0.69 2.33 Moderate
6 499.13 23.72 1.24 10,485.59 0.0290 0.0414 0.0427 0.0467 1.00 0.64 0.66 0.68 2.46 Moderate
7 493.36 23.12 1.24 8,745.04 0.0299 0.0427 0.0442 0.0485 1.00 0.64 0.66 0.68 2.33 Moderate
8 521.73 24.99 3.31 9,801.95 0.0293 0.0418 0.0642 0.1313 0.85 0.20 0.12 0.67 0.63 Slight
9 515.99 23.59 3.23 9,497.65 0.0292 0.0417 0.0632 0.1277 0.99 0.25 0.77 0.92 1.18 Slight
10 511.46 25.91 2.00 10,240.22 0.0294 0.0420 0.0511 0.0786 1.00 0.62 0.69 0.80 1.84 Moderate
11 483.81 28.82 1.20 10,707.17 0.0296 0.0423 0.0433 0.0463 1.00 0.65 0.66 0.68 2.44 Moderate
12 518.56 23.61 3.40 9,927.29 0.0294 0.0421 0.0655 0.1359 0.84 0.17 0.10 0.68 0.61 Slight
13 509.58 26.60 1.74 10,509.14 0.0295 0.0421 0.0485 0.0678 1.00 0.62 0.68 0.77 1.97 Moderate
14 500.59 29.79 1.20 11,011.33 0.0292 0.0417 0.0426 0.0454 1.00 0.65 0.66 0.67 2.49 Moderate
15 491.15 23.33 3.23 9,800.28 0.0297 0.0425 0.0644 0.1301 0.99 0.29 0.77 0.92 1.19 Slight
16 462.54 22.85 1.71 9,851.33 0.0296 0.0424 0.0486 0.0674 1.00 0.63 0.68 0.77 1.97 Moderate
17 477.01 23.31 1.79 8,632.53 0.0298 0.0426 0.0496 0.0707 1.00 0.63 0.68 0.77 1.89 Moderate
18 494.02 26.79 2.04 10,185.30 0.0296 0.0423 0.0519 0.0807 1.00 0.62 0.69 0.81 1.80 Moderate
19 481.91 24.78 1.96 10,011.71 0.0296 0.0423 0.0511 0.0774 1.00 0.62 0.69 0.80 1.84 Moderate
20 483.25 25.74 2.07 9,981.88 0.0296 0.0423 0.0523 0.0821 1.00 0.62 0.69 0.82 1.78 Moderate
21 539.25 25.67 3.01 10,133.08 0.0295 0.0422 0.0617 0.1204 1.00 0.37 0.77 0.91 1.35 Slight
22 497.64 23.48 2.29 9,757.08 0.0293 0.0418 0.0539 0.0902 1.00 0.58 0.71 0.84 1.72 Moderate
23 479.64 27.36 2.08 9,830.12 0.0295 0.0422 0.0522 0.0823 1.00 0.62 0.69 0.82 1.79 Moderate
24 455.13 24.79 1.20 9,971.33 0.0293 0.0418 0.0428 0.0459 1.00 0.65 0.66 0.68 2.47 Moderate
25 459.11 24.21 1.43 9,995.47 0.0296 0.0423 0.0456 0.0555 1.00 0.63 0.67 0.72 2.17 Moderate
26 494.63 25.65 2.99 9,214.84 0.0295 0.0421 0.0614 0.1193 1.00 0.36 0.77 0.91 1.34 Slight
27 501.37 23.70 2.00 10,077.50 0.0294 0.0420 0.0511 0.0786 1.00 0.62 0.69 0.80 1.83 Moderate
28 503.10 26.90 1.33 10,378.52 0.0291 0.0415 0.0438 0.0507 1.00 0.63 0.66 0.70 2.33 Moderate
29 504.45 24.48 1.76 10,085.22 0.0292 0.0417 0.0483 0.0680 1.00 0.62 0.68 0.77 1.99 Moderate

© ASCE 04022028-9 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(3): 04022028

 Appendix. (Continued.)
Serial number fy f ck Ductility Stiffness Sd1 Sd2 Sd3 Sd4 β1 β2 β3 β4 DI Damage
30 504.69 24.88 1.78 10,044.17 0.0292 0.0417 0.0485 0.0689 1.00 0.62 0.68 0.77 1.97 Moderate
31 483.27 24.98 1.49 10,035.77 0.0293 0.0419 0.0458 0.0575 1.00 0.62 0.67 0.73 2.14 Moderate
32 507.26 26.32 2.49 10,220.74 0.0295 0.0422 0.0564 0.0989 1.00 0.54 0.72 0.87 1.61 Moderate
33 497.87 23.18 2.81 9,533.46 0.0298 0.0426 0.0604 0.1136 1.00 0.46 0.75 0.90 1.44 Slight
34 493.45 24.24 2.28 9,884.80 0.0295 0.0421 0.0541 0.0903 1.00 0.58 0.71 0.84 1.71 Moderate
35 472.73 27.16 1.18 10,586.73 0.0293 0.0419 0.0427 0.0452 1.00 0.65 0.66 0.67 2.49 Moderate
36 504.72 25.12 2.87 10,061.83 0.0297 0.0424 0.0606 0.1151 1.00 0.41 0.76 0.90 1.41 Slight
37 513.52 25.68 3.40 10,219.26 0.0298 0.0426 0.0663 0.1376 0.85 0.20 0.10 0.69 0.62 Slight
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat" on 05/06/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

38 514.69 25.52 2.32 9,980.95 0.0292 0.0418 0.0541 0.0913 1.00 0.56 0.71 0.84 1.70 Moderate
39 500.86 26.53 1.61 10,312.91 0.0294 0.0419 0.0471 0.0626 1.00 0.62 0.67 0.75 2.04 Moderate
40 491.05 24.36 1.52 9,011.42 0.0298 0.0426 0.0470 0.0600 1.00 0.62 0.67 0.74 2.06 Moderate
41 519.94 25.42 3.46 10,125.92 0.0296 0.0423 0.0665 0.1390 0.84 0.16 0.10 0.70 0.61 Slight
42 510.40 24.53 2.39 10,268.38 0.0296 0.0423 0.0555 0.0953 1.00 0.57 0.72 0.86 1.65 Moderate
43 529.43 25.39 1.89 9,248.86 0.0296 0.0423 0.0503 0.0745 1.00 0.62 0.68 0.78 1.86 Moderate
44 524.93 23.88 2.97 9,430.70 0.0294 0.0420 0.0610 0.1182 1.00 0.37 0.77 0.91 1.36 Slight
45 501.71 26.90 1.64 10,358.29 0.0294 0.0420 0.0474 0.0636 1.00 0.62 0.67 0.75 2.02 Moderate
46 481.53 20.17 3.08 8,891.93 0.0290 0.0414 0.0612 0.1206 0.99 0.30 0.76 0.91 1.27 Slight
47 498.36 24.93 1.65 10,079.80 0.0292 0.0418 0.0472 0.0637 1.00 0.63 0.68 0.76 2.06 Moderate
48 487.55 22.37 2.01 9,694.90 0.0293 0.0418 0.0510 0.0787 1.00 0.62 0.69 0.81 1.84 Moderate
49 518.82 24.87 2.38 10,211.44 0.0294 0.0420 0.0551 0.0943 1.00 0.56 0.72 0.85 1.67 Moderate
50 486.06 24.20 2.25 9,931.86 0.0296 0.0423 0.0541 0.0894 1.00 0.60 0.70 0.84 1.71 Moderate
Note: DI = damage index.

Data Availability Statement
All data, models, or codes that support the findings of this study are
available from the corresponding author, Kaushik Gondaliya, upon
reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the
Ministry of Education, Government of India.
References
Aguilar-Meléndez, A., L. G. Pujades, A. H. Barbat, M. G. Ordaz, J.
de la Puente, N. Lantada, and H. E. Rodríguez-Lozoya. 2019. “A prob-
abilistic approach for seismic risk assessment based on vulnerability
functions: Application to Barcelona.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 17 (4):
1863–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0516-4.
ASCE. 2017. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE/
SEI 41-13. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Baker, J. W. 2007. “Measuring bias in structural response caused by ground
motion scaling.” Pac. Conf. Earthquake Eng. 56 (3): 1–6. https://doi
.org/10.1002/eqe.
Baker, J. W. 2015. “Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dy-
namic structural analysis.” Earthquake Spectra 31 (1): 579–599. https://
doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M.
Barbat, A. H., L. G. Pujades, and N. Lantada. 2006. “Performance of build-
ings under earthquakes in Barcelona, Spain.” Comput.-Aided Civ. Infra-
struct. Eng. 21 (8): 573–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2006
.00450.x.
Barbat, A. H., L. G. Pujades, and N. Lantada. 2008. “Seismic damage
evaluation in urban areas using the capacity spectrum method: Appli-
cation to Barcelona.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 28 (10–11): 851–865.
Barbat, A. H., L. G. Pujades, N. Lantada, and R. Moreno. 2010. “Erratum
to ‘Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using a capacity spectrum
based method: Application to Barcelona’ [Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering, 28, 10-11, (2008), 851-865].” Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Eng. 30 (8): 767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.12.014.
Bhosale, A. S., R. Davis, and P. Sarkar. 2017. “Vertical irregularity of build-
ings: Regularity index versus seismic risk.” J. Risk Uncertainty Eng.
Syst. 3 (3): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000900.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1987a. Design loads (Other than Earth-
quake) for buildings and structures. Dead loads—Code of practice.
IS 875 Part 1. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1987b. Design loads (Other than Earth-
quake) for buildings and structures. Imposed loads—Code of practice.
IS 875 Part 2. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2000. Plain and reinforced concrete—
Code of practice. IS 456. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2016a. Criteria for earthquake resistant
design of structures: Part 1. General provisions and buildings. IS 1893.
New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2016b. Ductile detailing of reinforced
concrete—Code of practice. IS 13920. New Delhi, India: BIS.
Choudhury, T., and H. B. Kaushik. 2018a. “Seismic fragility of open ground
storey RC frames with wall openings for vulnerability assessment.” Eng.
Struct. 155 (Jun): 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11
.023.
Choudhury, T., and H. B. Kaushik. 2018b. “Seismic response sensitivity
to uncertain variables in RC frames with infill walls.” J. Struct. Eng.
144 (10): 04018184. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0002190.
Choudhury, T., and H. B. Kaushik. 2019. “Treatment of uncertainties in
seismic fragility assessment of RC frames with masonry infill walls.”
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 126 (Jul): 105771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.soildyn.2019.105771.
Comartin, C., R. Niewiarowski, and C. Rojahn. 1996. Seismic evaluation
and retrofit of concrete buildings. ATC-40. Redwood, CA: Applied
Technology Council.
CSI (Computers and Structures Inc). 2021. Structural analysis program,
SAP2000: Advanced, static and dynamic finite element analysis of
structures. Berkeley, CA: CSI.
FEMA. 2009. Quantification of building seismic performance factors.
FEMA P695. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA. 2018. Seismic performance assessment of buildings. FEMA P-58.
Washington, DC: FEMA.
Franchin, P., P. E. Pinto, and P. Rajeev. 2010. “Confidence factor?” J. Earth-
quake Eng. 14 (7): 989–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363246090
3527948.

© ASCE 04022028-10 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(3): 04022028

 Humar, J. M., D. Lau, and J. R. Pierre. 2001. “Performance of buildings
during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 28 (6): 979–991.
https://doi.org/10.1139/l01-070.
Hurtado, J. E., and A. Barbat. 1998. “Monte Carlo techniques in computa-
tional stochastic mechanics.” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 5 (1): 3–29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02736747.
Jain, S. K., et al. 2001. “Preliminary observations on the origin and effects
of the January 26, 2001 Bhuj (Gujarat, India) earthquake.” EERI Spec.
Earthquake Rep. 35 (2): 16.
Jeong, S. H., A. M. Mwafy, and A. S. Elnashai. 2012. “Probabilistic seismic
performance assessment of code-compliant multi-story RC buildings.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat" on 05/06/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Eng. Struct. 34 (Jan): 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011
.10.019.
Kennedy, R. P., C. A. Cornell, R. D. Campbell, S. Kaplan, and H. F. Perla.
1980. “Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power
plant.” Nucl. Eng. Des. 59 (2): 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029
-5493(80)90203-4.
Lantada, N., L. G. Pujades, and A. H. Barbat. 2009. “Vulnerability index
and capacity spectrum based methods for urban seismic risk evaluation.
A comparison.” Nat. Hazards 51 (3): 501–524.
Manafpour, A. R., and P. K. Moghaddam. 2014. “Probabilistic approach
to performance-based seismic design of RC frames.” In Vulnerability,
uncertainty, and risk: Quantification, mitigation, and management,
1736–1745. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/978078441
3609.174.
Priestley, M. N., F. Seible, and G. M. Calvi. 1996. Seismic design and
retrofit of bridges. New York: Wiley.
Pujades, L. G., A. H. Barbat, R. González-Drigo, J. Avila, and S.
Lagomarsino. 2012. “Seismic performance of a block of buildings
representative of the typical construction in the Eixample district in
Barcelona (Spain).” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 10 (1): 331–349. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9207-5.
Rajeev, P., and S. Tesfamariam. 2012. “Seismic fragilities for reinforced
concrete buildings with consideration of irregularities.” Struct. Saf.
39 (Nov): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.06.001.
Ranganathan, R. 1999. Structural reliability analysis and design. Mumbai,
India: Jaico.
Rizzano, G., and I. Tolone. 2009. “Seismic assessment of existing RC
frames: Probabilistic approach.” J. Struct. Eng. 135 (7): 836–852. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:7(836).
Silva, V., H. Crowley, H. Varum, R. Pinho, and M. Marques. 2014.
“Investigation of the characteristics of the Portuguese moment-frame
© ASCE 04022028-11
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2022, 27(3): 04022028
RC building stock.” In Vulnerability, uncertainty, and risk: Quantifica-
tion, mitigation, and management, 1726–1735. Reston, VA: ASCE.
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413609.173.
Straub, D., and A. Der Kiureghian. 2008. “Improved seismic fragility mod-
eling from empirical data.” Struct. Saf. 30 (4): 320–336. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.strusafe.2007.05.004.
Surana, M., Y. Singh, and D. H. Lang. 2018. “Seismic characterisation
and vulnerability of building stock in hilly regions.” Nat. Hazard.
Rev. 19 (1): 04017024. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996
.0000275.
Van Rossum, G., and F. L. Drake. 2009. Python 3 reference manual. Scotts
Valley, CA: CreateSpace.
Vargas, Y. F., L. G. Pujades, A. H. Barbat, and J. E. Hurtado. 2013. “Capac-
ity, fragility and damage in reinforced concrete buildings: A probabi-
listic approach.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 11 (6): 2007–2032. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9468-x.
Vargas, Y. F., L. G. Pujades, A. H. Barbat, and J. E. Hurtado. 2018. “Prob-
abilistic seismic damage assessment of RC buildings based on nonlinear
dynamic analysis.” Open Civ. Eng. J. 9 (1): 344–350. https://doi.org/10
.2174/1874149501509010344.
Vargas Alzate, Y. F., L. G. Pujades Beneit, A. H. Barbat, J. E. Hurtado
Gomez, S. A. Diaz Alvarado, and D. A. Hidalgo Leiva. 2018. “Probabi-
listic seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete buildings con-
sidering directionality effects.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 14 (6): 817–829.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2017.1385089.
Vargas-Alzate, Y. F., N. Lantada, R. González-Drigo, and L. G. Pujades.
2020. “Seismic risk assessment using stochastic non-linear models.”
Sustainability 12 (4): 1308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041308.
Vargas-Alzate, Y. F., L. G. Pujades, A. H. Barbat, and J. E. Hurtado.
2019. “An efficient methodology to estimate probabilistic seismic dam-
age curves.” J. Struct. Eng. 145 (4): 04019010. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002290.
Wessa, P. 2021. “Free statistics software.” Accessed July 1, 2017. https://
www.wessa.net/.
Xue, B., and J. L. Le. 2016. “Stochastic computational model for
progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings.” J. Struct. Eng.
142 (7): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001485.
Zentner, I., M. Gündel, and N. Bonfils. 2017. “Fragility analysis meth-
ods: Review of existing approaches and application.” Nucl. Eng.
Des. 323 (Nov): 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016
.12.021.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.