4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Taipei, Taiwan
October 12-13, 2006

Paper No. 145

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF BUILDINGS WITH PLAN IRREGULARITIES

Seong-Hoon Jeong1 and Amr S. Elnashai2

ABSTRACT

A methodology for the derivation of fragility curves for structures with plan irregularities is presented
herein. In order to characterize the damage state of irregular structures, a spatial (3D) damage index
is formulated and employed as the damage characterization measure. The procedure is illustrated
through a reference derivation of fragility curves for an irregular RC building under bidirectional
earthquake loadings. Via the comparison between fragility curves derived by the spatial and the
previously-existing damage indices, it is shown that employing the latter for the fragility analysis of
irregular structures may be inaccurate and even unconservative.

Keywords: Torsion, Irregularity, Fragility Analysis, Damage Index

INTRODUCTION

Fragility curves, used for the assessment of seismic losses, are in increasing demand, both for pre-
earthquake disaster planning and post-earthquake recovery and retrofitting programs. This is due to the
difficulties associated with analyzing individual structures and the importance of obtaining a global
view of anticipated damage or effects of intervention, before and after an earthquake, respectively.
Analytically-derived, mechanics-based fragility relationships (Jeong and Elnashai, 2006b) result in
reduced bias and increased reliability of the assessment compared to fragilities based on post-
earthquake observations (Rossetto and Elnashai, 2003) or on expert opinion. Since analytical methods
are based on statistical damage measures from analyses of structural models under increasing
earthquake loads, employing appropriate damage assessment methods is central to deriving fragility
curves.

For the seismic assessment of structures with planar irregularities, a damage measure should be able to
reflect 3D structural response features such as torsion and bidirectional response. In this study, a
spatial (3D) damage characterization is utilized to represent the damage states of the building with
plan irregularities. The latter method accounts for the multi-directionality of earthquake motion as well
as the asymmetry of the structure. It therefore captures the true three-dimensional inelastic effects that
govern the response of RC (reinforced concrete) structures. The adoption of such a damage measure
opens the door to the derivation of spatial fragility relationships of irregular structures which have 3D
responses, bi-directional deformation and torsion. In deriving fragility curves with the proposed
damage measure, the validity of statistical manipulation methods is carefully investigated. A
systematic methodology to exclude unrealistic analysis results from the statistical treatment of

1
Senior Research Fellow, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois, USA, currently Research Professor, Dept.
of Architectural Eng., University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea, jeong@uos.ac.kr
2
Bill and Elaine Hall Endowed Professor of Engineering, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Eng., University of Illinois,
Director of the Mid-America Earthquake Center, Urbana, Illinois, USA, aelnash@uiuc.edu
response variables is proposed and the feasibility of using lognormal distributions for bounded
response variables, such as in the case of fragility derivation, is investigated.

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT METHOD FOR SPATIALLY-RESPONDING BUILDINGS

Seismic assessment of buildings with irregular plans requires special attention while regular structures
can be readily idealized and assessed using conventional 2D damage measures. Plan irregularities
cause non-uniform damage levels among the members within a story and thus story damage
indications are inadequate in such cases. In order to overcome the limitations of conventional damage
measures, a damage assessment method for torsionally imbalanced buildings is proposed, as described
in subsequent sections of this study.

Planar Decomposition and Local Damage Measure

To conduct accurate damage assessment of buildings exhibiting torsion, a new method termed Planar
Decomposition is proposed herein. In the proposed method, the whole structure is decomposed into
planar frames that are considered to be the basic elements of lateral resistance, as shown in Fig. 1.

x3

x2
Frame x3 Frame y3

Frame x2 x1 Frame y2

y1 y2 y3
y

Frame x1 x Frame y1
Planar frames in the x direction Plan of an irregular building Planar frames in the y direction

Figure 1. Plan of an irregular building and frames used in planar decomposition.

A planar frame may respond out-of-plane and be subjected forces from other members orthogonally
connected to it. Thus, the damage measure for planar frames (local damage measure) should be
sensitive to out-of-plane response. In the proposed damage index, the strength reduction below the
backbone envelope curve is used as the measure of out-of-plane actions. The index to estimate the
damage of planar frames is defined as a combination of damage due to in-plane monotonic
displacement and strength reduction from the backbone envelope, as given in Eq. (1).

Δp Δp F0 − Fp
+ (1 − )⋅ for Δp ≤ Δu
Δu Δu F0 − F f
D= (1)
Δp
for Δp > Δu
Δu

The parameters used in Eq. (1) are explained in Fig. 2, where a typical force-displacement relationship
of an RC frame under bidirectional loading and its backbone envelop curve are presented. Δp and Δu
are the displacement at a peak response and the ultimate displacement, respectively. The peak
response point (Δp) is not necessarily the maximum displacement. The total damage (D) is evaluated at
several candidate peak response points that may lead to the maximum value. The local damage level
(Di) is determined by the maximum value of D. At a given displacement (Δp), the term F0-Fp
represents strength degradation due to bidirectional and cyclic loading effects while Ff is the
corresponding failure strength. The failure strength is assumed to be a linear function of displacement
which connects the origin and ultimate displacement (Δu). The latter definition has been used as an
upper-bound of the failure strength of RC members (Chung et al., 1989; Bracci et al., 1989). It is
conceptually similar to the stiffness at ultimate state used in secant stiffness damage indices [Banon et
al., 1981; Roufaiel and Meyer, 1987).

For the reference evaluations in this paper, the ultimate displacement is defined as the post-peak
displacement corresponding to 85% of the peak strength, which is a common practice for
systems without significant capacity reduction after the peak strength (Park, 1988).

150
f00
F

100 Ff p

fff
F
50
Force (kN)

Failure path
0
Δp Δu

-50
Ultimate
-100 displacement

-150
-100 -50 0 50 100
Displacement (mm)
Figure 2. Parameters for the definition of the spatial damage index.

System Damage Measure

The local damage measures for planar frames are combined to formulate a system-wide global damage
index. For a given direction, all planar frames in the direction of consideration participate in the
unidirectional global damage index. After obtaining a global damage index in one direction, the
process is repeated for the other direction and the overall damage state of a story is determined by the
damage index of the critical direction. The proposed combination method adopts two important
assumptions that have been generally used in formulating the weighted average damage indices [8, 4].
These assumptions are (i) placing emphasis on severely damaged local elements and (ii) using gravity
loads supported by the local component for its weighting factor. The latter assumptions are justified on
the ground of the criticality of members that are supporting high levels of axial force to the gravity
load stability of the frame.

Based on the above assumptions, the weighting (Wi) of local damage is defined as:

Wi = wi ⋅ AC i ( Di ) (2)

where, wi is the gravity load on the contribution area (ACi). The contribution area is defined as a
function of the local damage level (Di) and determined by inspecting the floor area affected by the
local damage, as illustrated in Fig. 3. In the latter figure, D1 and D2 are damage levels of Frame 1 and
Frame 2, respectively. The influence area (Ai) of each frame changes from Ai,min to Ai,max according to
the damage level of the corresponding planar frame. Definitions of various areas used in the proposed
combination method are given in Table 1.
 Contribution area Influence area of Frame 2 Influence area of Frame 1
Case-A Case-B Case-C

D1 is increasing
D1= Dm D1 D2 D1 ≥1.0 D2

A1,min A1 A1,max

D1 = Minor damage, Dm Frame 1 Frame 2

D1 ≥ 1.0, Frame 1 has failed.
D1 D2 ≥ 1.0 D2= Dm

A2,max A2 A2,min

D2 ≥ 1.0, Frame 2 has failed. Frame 1 Frame 2 D2 = Minor damage, Dm

D2 is increasing

A2 Acm,12 A1

Figure 3. Influence area matrix.

Table 1. Definition of areas used in the proposed combination method

Areas Description Symbols

Influence area The area affected by local damage Ai

The minimum influence area when the local damage is
Tributary area Ai,min
minor
The maximum influence area when the local
Failure consequence area Ai,max
component has failed
The area shared by influence areas of two neighboring
Common influence area Acm,ij
local components
The area for determining the local damage contribution
to the overall damage level
Contribution area ACi
When Di < Dj
ACi = Ai - Acm,ij , ACj = Aj
The area shared by failure consequence areas of two
Common failure consequence
neighboring local components; maximum common ACF,ij
area
area

The first row of the influence area matrix in Fig. 3 represents the influence areas of Frame 1. The
influence area in each element of the first row is determined as follows:
 (a) Case-A: When the damage level of Frame 1 is minor (Dm), the local contribution of a planar
frame is determined by its own tributary gravity load. In this case, the influence area of local
damage is termed tributary area (Ai,min).
(b) Case-B: The influence area (A1) is determined by interpolating between the two cases (Case-A
and Case-C). The value of A1 is between the tributary area (Case-A) and the failure consequence
area (Case-C). It is expressed as:

A1 = A1, min + ( A1,max − A1,min ) ⋅D 1

(3)

where, A1,min and A1,max are tributary area and failure consequence area, respectively. D1 is the
damage index of Frame 1. In the latter formulation, the minor damage level in Case-A is
assumed as Dm=0.
(c) Case-C: If Frame 1 fails (D1 ≥1.0), then the consequence is not limited to the tributary area but
extends to the neighboring planar frame. In this case, the whole area shared by the two frames is
used for the influence area of Frame 1. The area is referred to as failure consequence area (Ai,max).

The second row represents the influence area of Frame 2 and the calculation method is the same as
that of Frame 1, which is presented above. Finally, the third row of the influence area matrix (Fig. 3)
represents local contribution areas (ACi). They are determined based on the influence areas (Ai) of
individual frames, which are tentatively used for deriving the contribution area (ACi). In order that the
sum of all contribution areas is equal to the total area, overlapping areas should be subtracted. The
overlapping influence area of Frame 1 and Frame 2 is termed common influence area (Acm,12),
expressed in Eq. (4).

Acm,12 = ( A1,max − A1,min ) ⋅ D1 + ( A2,max − A2,min ) ⋅ D2 (4)

The common influence area is regarded as part of the influence area of the more damaged local
component, i.e., the common influence area is governed by the damage level of the critical component.
If Frame 1 is less damaged than Frame 2 (D1 < D2), their contributing areas (ACi) can be calculated as
follows.

ACF ,12
AC1 = A1 − Acm,12 = A1, min − ( A2,max − A2,min ) ⋅ D2 = A1,min − ⋅ D2 (5)
2

ACF ,12
AC 2 = A2 = A2, min + ( A2,max − A2,min ) ⋅ D2 = A2,min + ⋅ D2 (6)
2

Where ACF,12 is the common region between the failure consequence areas of two neighboring planar
frames (A1,max, A2,max). It is referred to as common failure consequence area. In Case A, Frame 2 has
failed and its tributary region will be the failure consequence area (the whole area between two
frames), and there is no contribution area for Frame 1. Case C is the opposite of the latter case.
Using the local contribution (Wi) in Eq. (2), the global damage index (Dg) of the example structure in
Fig. 3 can be expressed as:

W1 ⋅ D1 + W2 ⋅ D2 w1 ⋅ AC1 ⋅ D1 + w2 ⋅ AC 2 ⋅ D2
Dg = = (7)
Wtotal Wtotal

where w1 and w2 are gravity loads on contribution areas (AC1, AC2). Assuming that the gravity loads are
uniformly distributed, Eq. (7) may be rewritten as

AC1 ⋅ D1 + AC 2 ⋅ D2
Dg = (8)
Atotal
The latter relationship gives general formulations of the global damage index (Dg) for the case of
uniformly distributed gravity loads, as shown below:

Ai ,min ⎡ ACF ,ij ⎤

Dg = ∑D i
Atotal
+ ∑ ⎢⎣ 2 ⋅ A
i≠ j total
⋅ Max( Di , D j ) ⋅ Di − D j ⎥
⎦
(9)

where the subscripts i and j are identification of individual local components. Di and Ai,min are the local
damage index and the tributary area of the local component i, respectively. ACF,ij is the common
region between the failure consequence areas of two neighboring planar frames and is termed common
failure consequence area. Additional details on the proposed damage index are given in Jeong and
Elnashai (2006a).

DERIVATION OF FRAGILITY CURVES

Reference Simulation

The proposed approach for constructing fragility curves for buildings with plan irregularities is
presented through a reference derivation. The damage assessment method was performed on a three-
story, 2×2 bay RC frame with asymmetric plan. The structure was designed for a full-scale pseudo-
dynamic test at the Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy under the auspices of the European Union
project ‘Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation’ (SPEAR). The layout of the structure is
represented in Fig. 4. The large column (C6) in Fig. 4 (b) contributes significantly higher stiffness and
strength in the y direction than in the x direction. The thickness of slab is 150 mm and total beam
depth is 500 mm. The sectional dimension of C6 is 750×250 mm whereas all other columns are
250×250 mm. The structure is a strong-beam weak-column system and the second story is a soft story.
A detailed description on the structure and analytical modeling are given in Jeong and Elnashai (2005).
Application of the planar decomposition to the SPEAR test structure, capacity curves and calculation
of ultimate displacements of individual planar frames are described in Jeong and Elnashai (2004).

C5 C1 C2
(a) (b)
B1 B2

B11 B9 B7

C9
C3 C4
B3
B4

B12 B10 B8

z C6 C7
y y C8
B6
x B5
x

Figure 4. Overview and plan of the test structure; (a) 3D view of the test structure, (b) Plan of the test
structure.

The list of the earthquake records is given in Table 2. Each of the records consist of two orthogonal
components (Longitudinal and Transverse) of horizontal accelerations and are modified from the
natural records to be compatible with a smooth code spectrum (Eurocode 8, 2003).
 Table 2. List of earthquake records with two orthogonal components

No. Earthquake Station

1 Montenegro 1979 Ulcinj
2 Montenegro 1979 Herceg Novi
3 Friuli 1976 Tolmezzo
4 Imperial Valley 1940 El Centro Array #9
5 Kalamata 1986 Prefecture
6 Loma Prieta 1989 Capitola
7 Imperial Valley 1979 Bonds Corner
8 Athens 1999 Metro
9 Parkfield 1969 Temblor
10 Duzce 1999 Duzce

In order to obtain response variables as functions of earthquake intensity, inelastic response history
analyses were performed with the records in Table 2 by scaling their PGAs from 0.05 to 0.4g with a
step of 0.05g. It is emphasized here that this is a reference implementation of 3D fragility analysis,
hence strong motion selection and scaling are not the focus of the work presented.

Derivation of Fragility Curves

The proposed approach for constructing fragility curves for buildings with plan irregularities is
presented through the reference derivation for the example building (Fig. 4) subjected to bidirectional
earthquake loadings (records in Table 2). Based on the assumption that a critical story governs the
overall damage state of the building, the 3D damage measure of the 2nd story (soft story) is employed
as the response variable. The probability of exceedance of a limit state at a given earthquake intensity
is calculated as follows:
⎛ ln( D ) − λ ⎞
Prob (D LS ≤ D) = 1 − Φ⎜ LS ⎟ (10)
⎜ β2 +β2 ⎟
⎝ R LS ⎠

where, λ = ln( μ / 1 + δ 2 ) . δ is coefficient of variation (COV), equal to the ratio of standard deviation
to mean value of damage index at an earthquake intensity, i.e. σ/μ. βR and βLS are response variability
due to inherent randomness and limit state uncertainty, respectively. The latter parameters can be
calculated as follows:

β R = ln(1 + δ 2 ) , β LS = ln(1 + δ LS
2
) (11)

where, δLS is the COV to represent the limit state uncertainty and assumed to be 0.33 based on the
research by Singhal and Kiremidjian (1998). According to the comparison given in Jeong and Elnashai
(2006a), the damage assessment results by the spatial index are very close to those by the Park and
Ang index (Park et al., 1985). Therefore, the damage scale proposed in Park et al. (1985) is considered
to be viable for the spatial damage index. The suggested classification of limit states is as follows:

D < 0.25 no damage or Minor damage - light cracking

0.25 ≤ D < 0.4 moderate damage - severe cracking, localized spalling
0.4 ≤ D < 1.0 severe damage - crushing of concrete, reinforcement exposed
D ≥ 1.0 collapsed
Recent studies (Kwon and Elnashai, 2005; Pinto et al., 2004) have shown that the effect of material
randomness on the variability of global response is overshadowed by that of variability in the ground
motion. Therefore, in the reference derivation, only the response variation caused by randomness in
the earthquake record set is used for βR.

In Fig. 5, fragility curves derived by the proposed damage assessment method are compared with
those by Park and Ang damage index (Park et al., 1985). The fragility curves derived by the spatial
damage index represent higher risk than those using the Park and Ang damage index. The difference
between the two sets of fragility curves becomes larger as the limit state represents more significant
damage level.
1
Spatial (3D) DI
Probability of exceedance

Park & Ang DI

0.8

0.6

0.4
Minor Moderate Severe Collapse

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA (g)

Figure 5. Comparison of fragility curves derived by the spatial and Park & Ang damage indices.

CONCLUSIONS

In the derivation of analytical fragility curves, the response of a structure is usually represented by a
single quantity such as top displacement, inter-story drift or a damage index, to enable statistical
treatment of the numerical simulation results. However, the absence of a single quantity to monitor
and represent the three-dimensional response has hitherto precluded the reliable vulnerability
assessment of irregular structures under bidirectional ground motion. The spatial damage measure
presented in this study broadens the application of analytical fragility curves to the important domain
of 3D structures with significant torsional response. Through the comparison between fragility curves
derived by the spatial and the conventional damage indices, it is shown that using the conventional
damage index is unconservative for spatially responding structures. Therefore, the proposed method of
deriving fragility curves is highly recommended for seismic assessment of plan-irregular structures
under bidirectional loading.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The work presented above was undertaken as part of the Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center
research project CM-4: Structural Retrofit Strategies, which is under the Consequence Minimization
Thrust Area. The MAE Center is a National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center (ERC),
funded through contract reference NSF Award No. EEC-9701785.

REFERENCES

Banon, H., Biggs, JM., and Irvine, HM. (1981), "Seismic damage in reinforced concrete frames," Journal of
Structural Engineering, 107(9), 1713-1729.
Bracci, JM., Reinhorn, AM., Mander, JB., and Kunnath, SK., 1989. Deterministic model for seismic damage
evaluation of RC structures, Rep. NCEER-89-0033, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
State Univ. of New York, Buffalo.
Chung, YS., Meyer, C., and Shinozuka, M. (1989), "Modeling of concrete damage," Structural Journal, ACI,
86(3), 259-271.
Eurocode 8, (2003). EN 1998-1: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
Jeong, SH. and Elnashai, AS. (2004), "Analytical and experimental seismic assessment of irregular RC
buildings," Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, IAEE, Vancouver, BC.,
Canada, 113.
Jeong, SH. and Elnashai, AS. (2005), "Analytical assessment of an irregular RC frame for full-scale 3D pseudo-
dynamic testing - Part I: Analytical model verification," Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9(1), 95-128.
Jeong, SH. and Elnashai, AS. (2006a), "New three-dimensional damage index for RC buildings with planar
irregularities," Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(9), 1482-1490.
Jeong, SH. and Elnashai, AS. (2006b), "Probabilistic fragility analysis parameterized by fundamental response
quantities," Engineering Structures, In Press.
Kwon, OS. and Elnashai, AS. (2006), "The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic
vulnerability curves of RC structure," Engineering Structures, 28(2), 289-303.
Park, R. (1988), "State-of-the art report, Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing,"
Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, IAEE, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, VIII,
605-616.
Park, YJ., Ang, AHS., and Wen, YK. (1985), "Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings,"
Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(4), 740-757.
Pinto, PE., Giannini, R., and Franchin, P., (2004), Seismic reliability analysis of structures, IUSS Press.
Rossetto, T. and Elnashai, AS. (2003), "Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures
based on observational data," Engineering Structures, 25(10), 1241-1263.
Roufaiel, MSL. and Meyer, C. (1987), "Analytical modeling of hysteretic behavior of R/C frames," Journal of
Structural Engineering, 113(3), 429-444.
Singhal, A. and Kiremidjian, AS. (1998), "Bayesian updating of fragilities with application to RC frames,"
Journal of Structural Engineering, 124(8), 922-929.