Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Seismic Fragility Analysis

  • Murat Altug ErberikEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_387


Damage probability matrix; Fragility curve; Fragility surface; Limit state; Numerical simulation; Seismic capacity; Seismic demand; Uncertainty


Seismic fragility can be defined as the proneness of a structural component or a system to fail to perform satisfactorily under a predefined limit state when subjected to an extensive range of seismic action. In accordance with the above definition, seismic fragility analysis can be regarded as a probabilistic measure for seismic performance assessment of structural components or systems. There are two different end products of seismic fragility analysis: damage probability matrix and fragility curve.

Damage probability matrix (DPM) is a table that provides discrete values of damage state probabilities for specified levels of ground motion intensities. Each column of DPM stands for a constant level of ground motion intensity whereas each row of DPM denotes the probability of being in a predefined damage state. Hence, any...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Applied Technology Council (1985) Report ATC-13: earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  2. Applied Technology Council (1996) Report ATC-40: seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  3. Erberik MA, Elnashai A (2004) Fragility analysis of flat-slab structures. Eng Struct 26:937–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA Publication 273. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Freeman SA, Nicoletti JP, Tyrell JV (1975) Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk – a case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. In: Proceedings of the US National conference on earthquake engineering, Berkeley, pp 113–122Google Scholar
  6. McKay MD, Conover WJ, Beckman RJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 221:239–245MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Metropolis N, Ulam S (1949) The Monte Carlo method. J Am Stat Assoc 44(247):335–341MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. National Institute of Building Sciences (1999) HAZUS technical manual. Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Rossetto T, Elnashai A (2003) Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data. Eng Struct 25:1241–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T (2000) Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech 126(12):1224–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ugurhan B, Askan A, Erberik MA (2011) A methodology for seismic loss estimation in urban regions based on ground-motion simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(2):710–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct D 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey