Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 465–477 | Cite as

Seismic fragility assessment for moment-resisting concrete frame with setback under repeated earthquakes

  • Moustafa Moffed Kassem
  • Fadzli Mohamed NazriEmail author
  • Lau Jie Wei
  • Chee Ghuan Tan
  • Shahiron Shahidan
  • Sharifah Salwa Mohd Zuki
Original Paper


This research study was carried out to analyse the seismic behaviour of ten types of six-storey moment-resisting concrete frames, which were one regular frame and nine setback frames with different building configurations. In this analysis, the setback buildings were mainly studied because they have become increasingly popular in modern multi-storey building construction due to their functional and aesthetic architecture. Incremental dynamics analysis (IDA) was performed on these frames under three sets of repeated ground motion records. Based on the IDA curve, life safety (LS) performance level was considered as the main guideline to develop the fragility curves. The maximum inter-storey drift percentages at each storey level, for all frames and location of plastic hinges for each frame, were clearly determined through IDA. From the fragility curve results, the probability of reaching or exceeding the life safety performance state was determined. The regular frame showed the lowest probability as compared to other frames. Therefore, it is known that the building configuration of frames affects the building’s seismic performance, and thus it should be considered in the building’s seismic design.


Regular buildings Irregular buildings Repeated earthquakes Incremental dynamic analysis Fragility curves 



This study was supported by Universiti Sains Malaysia under the Research University (Individual) Grant Scheme (8014080) and RU Grant of University of Malaya (GPF026A-2018).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Aiswarya, S., & Mohan, N. (2014). Vulnerability analysis by the development of fragility curves. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), 11(2), 33–40.Google Scholar
  2. Amadio, C., Fragiacomo, M., & Rajgelj, S. (2003). The effects of repeated earthquake ground motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32(2), 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakhshi, A., & Asadi, P. (2013). Probabilistic evaluation of seismic design parameters of RC frames based on fragility curves. Scientia Iranica, 20(2), 231–241.Google Scholar
  4. BSI. (2004a). BS EN 1992-1. Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures Part 1-1–General rules and rules for buildings (including NA). London: British Standards Institution.Google Scholar
  5. BSI. (2004b). BS EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8, Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. BSI London, UK.Google Scholar
  6. FEMA-273. (1997). NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Building Seismic Safety Council, FEMA.Google Scholar
  7. FEMA-356. (2000). Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-356.Google Scholar
  8. Ghobarah, A. (2001). Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of development. Engineering Structures, 23(8), 878–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goulet, C. A., Haselton, C. B., Mitrani-Reiser, J., Beck, J. L., Deierlein, G. G., Porter, K. A., et al. (2007). Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building—from seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36(13), 1973–1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haselton, C. B., Liel, A. B., Dean, B. S., Chou, J. H., & Deierlein, G. G. (2007). Seismic collapse safety and behavior of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. Structural Engineering Research Frontiers, 32(14), 1–14.Google Scholar
  11. Hatzigeorgiou, G. D., & Beskos, D. E. (2009). Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Engineering Structures, 31(11), 2744–2755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hatzigeorgiou, G. D., & Liolios, A. A. (2010). Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30(10), 1010–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IBC. (2000). International Building Code, International Code Council. Inc. (formerly BOCA, ICBO and SBCCI), 1–796.Google Scholar
  14. Ibrahim, Y. E., & El-Shami, M. M. (2011). Seismic fragility curves for mid-rise reinforced concrete frames in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering, 4(4), 213–223.Google Scholar
  15. Kovvuri, N. R. (2015). Effect of setback on RC framed buildings in fundamental period. International Journal of Advanced Technology in Engineering and Science, 3(5), 20–30.Google Scholar
  16. Liel, A. B., Haselton, C. B., Deierlein, G. G., & Baker, J. W. (2009). Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Structural Safety, 31(2), 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mackie, K., & Stojadinović, B. (2003). Seismic demands for performance-based design of bridges. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Berkeley, 16, 1–153.Google Scholar
  18. Manafizad, A. N., Pradhan, B., & Abdullahi, S. (2016). Estimation of peak ground acceleration (PGA) for Peninsular Malaysia using geospatial approach. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 37(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  19. Nazri, F. M., & Alexander, N. A. (2014). Exploring the relationship between earthquake intensity and building damage using single and multi-degree of freedom models. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 41(4), 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Trivedi, P. V., Sheth, R. K., & Soni, P. D. (2016). Performance evaluation of R.C. moment resisting symmetric frame using nonlinear dynamic analysis. Global Research and Development Journal for Engineering, 4(1), 177–183.Google Scholar
  21. UBC. (1997). Structural design requirement, Division IV. Earthquake Design, 2(1), 9–37.Google Scholar
  22. Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vamvatsikos, D., & Fragiadakis, M. (2010). Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 39(2), 141–163.Google Scholar
  24. Vazurkar, U., & Chaudhari, D. (2016). Development of fragility curves for RC buildings. International Journal of Engineering Research, 5(3), 591–594.Google Scholar
  25. Vision 2000. (1995). Conceptual framework for performance based seismic engineering of buildings, Vol. 2. Structural Engineers Association of California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering, Engineering CampusUniversiti Sains MalaysiaNibong TebalMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  3. 3.Jamilus Research Centre, Faculty of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversiti Tun Hussein Onn MalaysiaBatu PahatMalaysia

Personalised recommendations