Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

FRACAS: A capacity spectrum approach for seismic fragility assessment

including record-to-record variability
Tiziana Rossetto a,⇑, Pierre Gehl a,b, Stylianos Minas a, Carmine Galasso a, Philippe Duffour a, John Douglas c,
Oliver Cook a
a
EPICentre, Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering, University College London, Gower Street, WC1E 6BT London, UK
b
Risks and Prevention Division, BRGM, 3 Avenue Claude Guillemin, 45060 Orléans, France
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, James Weir Building, 75 Montrose Street, Glasgow G1 1XJ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a new approach for the derivation of fragility curves, named FRAgility through
Received 9 March 2015 Capacity spectrum ASsessment (FRACAS). FRACAS adapts the capacity spectrum assessment method
Revised 24 March 2016 and uses inelastic response spectra derived from earthquake ground motion accelerograms to construct
Accepted 27 June 2016
fragility curves. Following a description of the FRACAS approach, the paper compares the predicted max-
Available online 25 July 2016
imum interstory drift (MIDR) response obtained from FRACAS and nonlinear time history analyses
(NLTHA) for two case-study buildings subjected to 150 natural accelerograms. FRACAS is seen to repre-
Keywords:
sent well the response of both case-study structures when compared to NLTHA. Observations are made as
Capacity spectrum method
Record-to-record variability
to the sensitivity of the derived fragility curves to assumptions in the capacity spectrum assessment and
Fragility curve fragility curve statistical model fitting. The paper also demonstrates the ability of FRACAS to capture
inelastic record-to-record variability and to properly translate this into the resulting fragility curves.
Ó 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction is expressed in terms of engineering demand parameters (EDPs),

which are then compared to properly calibrated thresholds (still
Fragility curves are a key component of probabilistic seismic in terms of EDPs) associated with a given damage state or perfor-
risk assessment. They express continuous relationships between mance level of structural and nonstructural components and sys-
a ground motion intensity measure (IM) and the probability that tems. The number of structural analyses required to construct the
the specified structure will reach or exceed predefined damage fragility curve may be large if both variability in the structural
states; they can be expressed as model/capacity (i.e., modelling uncertainty) and ground motion
characteristics are included. Hence, a number of approaches for fra-
PðDS P dsi jIMÞ; ð1Þ gility curve generation have been proposed in the past that either
where DS is the damage state of the asset class being assessed and adopt a simplified structural model (e.g., a single degree of freedom
dsi is a particular predefined state of damage. An IM is a scalar - SDoF - system), analysis approach (static or dynamic), assessment
ground motion parameter that is considered to be representative method or combination of these. These have been extensively
of the earthquake damage potential with respect to the specific reviewed in [1].
structure. In general terms, a fragility curve is built by fitting a sta- In practice, for low- to mid-rise buildings, these approaches
tistical model to data on building damage at different values of the either adopt simplified structural models and assess their perfor-
IM, for example based on post-earthquake surveys. In the case of mance using full nonlinear time history analyses or adopt more
analytical fragility curves, structural response is first obtained complex structural models and assess their performance using
through the analysis of structural models subjected to earthquake variations of the capacity spectrum assessment method. The for-
excitation of increasing intensity. The structural response obtained mer approach commonly involves carrying out Incremental
Dynamic Analysis (IDA, [2]) or its variants (e.g., [3]) on SDoF sys-
⇑ Corresponding author. tems. More complex structural models can be utilized in IDA but
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Rossetto), [email protected] (P. Gehl),
the computational effort required to generate a fragility function
[email protected] (S. Minas), [email protected] (C. Galasso), [email protected] representative of a building class (rather than a single building)
(P. Duffour), [email protected] (J. Douglas), [email protected]. using multiple earthquake records and structural models
uk (O. Cook).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.06.043
0141-0296/Ó 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
338 T. Rossetto et al. / Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348

commonly precludes their use. One of the advantages of IDA is that through several statistical model fitting techniques. The proposed
the effect of record-to-record variability can be explicitly included approach is highly efficient and allows for fragility curves to be
in the assessment; however, the accuracy of the assessment derived from the analysis of a specific structure or a population
strongly depends on how well the structure is modelled by an SDoF of frames subjected to a number of earthquake records with dis-
system or other simplified modelling assumptions (e.g., [1]). tinct characteristics. In this way, the method is able to account
The capacity spectrum approach, originally proposed by Free- for the effect of variability in seismic input and structural charac-
man et al. [4], relies on the determination of a structure’s perfor- teristics on the damage statistics simulated for the building class,
mance point by comparing the equivalent capacity and demand and evaluate the associated uncertainty in the fragility prediction.
spectra in terms of the acceleration-displacement representation The FRACAS procedure is based on the following steps (Fig. 1):
(ADRS). Several capacity spectrum assessment approaches have
been proposed in the past, most notably the ATC-40 approach 1. Mathematical models of a population of buildings are gener-
[5], the coefficient method in FEMA-356 [6] and the N2 method ated by selecting a representative building, termed ‘‘index
[7,8]. These approaches usually require a standardized design spec- building”, and generating variations of the index building
trum (e.g., code-based) and the use of a corner period to identify with differing structural or geometrical properties. See [1]
acceleration- and displacement-sensitive segments of the demand for recommendations on how to generate the model popula-
spectrum. Therefore, these standardized earthquake spectra are tion to represent a building class. Alternatively, large sets of
commonly defined as smooth functions that do not account for structures can be generated stochastically based on statisti-
the variability present in natural spectra derived using recorded cal models of geometric and material properties (e.g., [12]).
ground motions signals. 2. The computational models of the index building and its vari-
In this paper, a new capacity spectrum assessment approach ations are analyzed with static pushover (PO) analysis or sta-
named FRACAS (FRAgility through CApacity Spectrum assessment) tic adaptive PO analysis (APO, e.g., [13]).
is presented. FRACAS builds on the approach originally proposed in 3. The PO curve is transformed into a capacity curve in ADRS
[9] and differs from those mentioned above in that it directly uses space, through the use of relative floor displacements and
acceleration time histories from which both elastic and inelastic floor masses (see Section 2.1).
spectra are computed and used to find the performance point. It 4. An idealized shape is fit to the capacity curve making various
is acknowledged that response spectra do not capture the entire choices regarding the selection of the yielding and ultimate
variability in earthquake ground motions. For example, response points, the number of segments (bilinear or multilinear)
spectra are ‘blind’ to the duration of shaking and, therefore, two and the presence of increased strength post-yield (e.g.
records, one of short duration and one much longer, but with the Figs. 1a and 2).
same spectrum would be assessed by this approach as having the 5. The idealized curve is discretized into a number of analysis
same influence on the structure. However, several studies have points (APs) (Fig. 1b) each representing an inelastic SDoF
shown that the amplitudes and shape of the elastic response spec- with the elastic stiffness, ductility and post-elastic proper-
tra have a key influence on the inelastic structural response, partic- ties shown by the capacity curve up to the considered AP.
ularly at high nonlinearity levels (e.g., [10]) and when collapse is of 6. At each AP, the response of the corresponding SDoF under
interest (e.g., [11]). Moreover, response spectra of earthquake the selected ground motion record is assessed through the
ground motions do show considerable variability, even for the Newmark-beta time-integration method. In particular, the
same magnitude and distance (and other source, path and site elastic response is calculated for analysis points preceding
parameters), and these differences will be reflected in the fragility yield and the inelastic response for those on the inelastic
curves derived using this capacity spectrum method. branch of the capacity spectrum (e.g. Fig. 1c and 1d).
The paper first describes the FRACAS approach in detail. It then 7. Using both elastic and inelastic parts of the response spec-
presents a comparison of the results from FRACAS and nonlinear trum, the performance point (PP) is estimated by the inter-
time history analyses (NLTAs) for the case study of two regular section of the capacity curve and response curve. No
mid-rise (4-story) reinforced concrete (RC) bare frames. These iterative process is required.
structural models are selected as they provide representative 8. The selected EDP is determined from the PP by re-visiting
examples of both existing and modern code-conforming European the results of the PO analysis at the corresponding capacity
RC buildings. The ability of FRACAS to effectively capture the vari- curve point. Maximum interstory drift ratio (MIDR) is
ability of earthquake ground motions and their influence on fragi- adopted as the EDP in FRACAS, but others can be determined
lity functions is then explored by employing various sets of if required, for example the roof-drift (RD). Different IMs
recorded and modified ground motions accelerograms. Finally, associated with the given accelerogram used in the assess-
the sensitivity of the derived fragility curves to other assumptions ment are also calculated and stored.
in the structural analysis and capacity spectrum assessment, 9. Steps 6–8 are repeated for each capacity curve producing
namely, the approach followed for capacity curve idealization, PPs (with associated IM and EDP) at different ground motion
and the choice of the statistical curve fitting method, are pre- intensity levels. This can be done by either scaling up the
sented. This article significantly extends the preliminary analyses selected accelerogram(s) to cover a range of intensities (sim-
presented by Gehl et al. [10] and Rossetto et al. [11]. ilarly to the IDA procedure) or by using several accelero-
grams selected to represent different intensities of ground
shaking (similarly to the cloud procedure; e.g., [3]). The
2. FRACAS: FRAgility through Capacity spectrum ASsessment number of PPs generated equals the product of the number
of structural models, number of accelerograms and number
FRACAS is a procedure for fragility curve generation that builds of scaling factors used.
on and improves the modified capacity spectrum method first 10. Fragility curves are constructed from the set of IM and EDP
developed by Rossetto and Elnashai [9]. FRACAS takes the basic pairs through an appropriate statistical curve fitting
methodology proposed in [9] and, within new software tool builds approach (see Section 2.6).
upon it to, allows more sophisticated capacity curve idealizations,
the use of various hysteretic models for the SDoF in the inelastic It is important to note that, in contrast to other capacity spec-
demand calculation, and the construction of fragility functions trum methods, FRACAS does not rely on reduction factors or
 T. Rossetto et al. / Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348 339

Fig. 1. Main steps of FRACAS for the derivation of the performance point (PP) using the trilinear idealization model. (a) shows the fitting of the idealised trilinear curve to the
structure capacity curve; (b) shows the identification of Analysis Points (AP), (c) compares the elastic demand spectrum with the capacity curve at the point of intersection of
the demand curve with the line representing the yield period of the structure; (d) shows the determination of the Performance Point (PP).

(a) (b) also has the advantage of permitting the use of various natural,
(d , a ) artificial or simulated accelerograms that generate unsmoothed
u u
(du, au) spectra as opposed to standardized design spectra. Therefore, the
α ⋅ k1 record-to-record variability can be directly introduced and the
Sa

Sa

resulting cloud of PPs leads to fragility curves that account for

k1 (dy,ay) (dy,ay) the natural variability in the seismic demand. The key steps of
k the FRACAS approach are explained in more detail below.
1
Sd Sd 2.1. Transformation of the pushover curve to ADRS space

(c) In the case of traditional static PO analysis the transformation of

(d ,a ) (dmax, amax) the base shear-top (i.e., roof) drift curve (PO curve) to ADRS space
y y
β ⋅ k1 is done in FRACAS using the modal participation factors and effec-
α ⋅ k1 tive modal weight ratios, determined from the fundamental mode
Sa

of the structure, using the following equations:

(du, au)
k PN
1 mj /j Vb uN
C ¼ PNj¼1 ; Sa ¼  ; Sd ¼ ;
m
j¼1 j j/ 2 M C/N
S P 2
d N
 j¼1 mj /j
Fig. 2. Models used in FRACAS for the capacity curve idealization: (a) elastic- M ¼ PN 2
: ð2Þ
perfectly plastic model (EPP), (b) elastic-plastic with positive strain-hardening j¼1 mj /j
(EPH) and (c) tri-linear model (TL).
where N is the total number of floors, uN is the top floor displace-
ment, Vb is the base shear force, /j is the jth floor element of the
indices to estimate the inelastic spectrum from the elastic one. fundamental mode shape (/I ), mj is the lumped mass at the jth floor
Instead, it carries out, for each AP (with target ductility and period), level and M⁄ is the effective modal mass for the fundamental mode
a simplified dynamic analysis on the idealized nonlinear SDoF of vibration.
model corresponding to the capacity curve. This process proves In the case of APO, the transformation must include the com-
to be more time-consuming than the commonly-used static bined effect of multiple response modes. A single transformation
approaches but it remains faster than performing full time history cannot be applied to the APO curve as the relative contribution
analyses on finite element models of full structures. This feature of each mode changes with each applied load increment. Hence,
340 T. Rossetto et al. / Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348

an approximate method for the transformation is adopted, where modelling options that are offered to the user are useful in empha-
the instantaneous displaced shape and story forces at each incre- sizing various aspects of the studied structure: one can decide
ment step (v) of the APO are used to transform the force displace- whether the idealized curve must closely fit the elastic period,
ment curves into ADRS space. The same expressions as for the SDoF the maximum strength, the yield deformation or the energy dissi-
transformation are adopted (Eq. (2)), with the current displaced pation capacity of the structural system. It is noted that De Luca
shape of the structure normalized to the top displacement (/I ) et al. [15] have found that using the equivalent-energy criterion
replacing the fundamental mode shape (/I ). /j is then replaced may lead to large biases in the prediction of the structural
with /j;v , the component of /I corresponding to the jth story. Also, response, especially when the curve fitting induces a significant
change in the initial stiffness.
uN,v and Vb,v replace uN and Vb, and are the top displacement and
base shear at the current load increment, respectively. The reason-
2.3. Discretization of the idealized capacity curve and definition of a
ing behind this transformation method is that the force distribu-
suite of SDoF systems for inelastic demand analysis
tion and resulting displacement distribution implicitly
incorporate the modal combinations. This assumption may not
In order to improve the efficiency of the PP calculation, FRACAS
be theoretically justified, but it is observed to provide reasonable
discretizes the capacity curve into a number of pre- and post-yield
assessment results (see [14]).
periods, which are used as analysis points (APs). In FRACAS the
number of APs is user-defined, but it is recommended that a min-
2.2. Idealization of the capacity curve imum of 5 points pre-yield and 25 points post-yield (evenly dis-
tributed along the post-yield branches of the idealized curve) be
In FRACAS, the capacity curve obtained from the PO is directly used. In addition, points defining changes of slope in the idealized
idealized as a multi-linear curve that: (a) is used to represent the curve (e.g. the yield point) should always be adopted as APs. Each
capacity curve when it is compared to the demand values in the AP is characterized by its spectral coordinates (i.e. di and ai in
determination of the PPs and (b) is used to define the inelastic Fig. 1a), and a ductility value, defined by the spectral displacement
backbone curve of an inelastic SDoF system for the demand calcu- of the analysis point (di) divided by that of the global yield of the
lation explained in Section 2.3. Different curve shapes can cur- structure (dy). Together with the elastic period of the idealized
rently be used to model the capacity curve of the structures: an curve, this ductility value is used to define an SDoF system from
elastic-perfectly plastic model (EPP), a non-degrading elastic- which the inelastic demand is calculated. The inelastic backbone
plastic with positive strain-hardening (EPH) or a tri-linear model curve of the SDoF system is also defined by the shape of the ideal-
(TL). These are illustrated in Fig. 2. The choice of model depends ized curve up to the analysis point.
on the type of structure and shape of the resulting capacity curve,
with, for example, EPH being better suited to steel frames without 2.4. Inelastic demand calculation
infill and TL to reinforced concrete frames with infill. Further mod-
els will be considered in the future. For a given earthquake record (which could be scaled to a cer-
Various curve fitting options are possible within FRACAS. In par- tain IM level), the inelastic seismic demand corresponding to each
ticular, an automated identification of the successive segments of AP is calculated through the analysis of the SDoF system associated
the idealized models is provided, with three different options with that AP (see above). The earthquake record used in the anal-
available for defining the yield point (dy, ay) (see Fig. 2): ysis is discretized into time increments smaller than (1/50)th of the
smallest vibration period of interest to ensure stability of the
1. First deviation from the initial stiffness (i.e. evolution of the tan- Newmark-Beta time integration (i.e. Dt/T 6 0.55; e.g., Clough and
gent slope of the capacity curve with respect to the initial gra- Penzien [16]). The acceleration record is applied in these time steps
dient – absolute deviation – or with respect to the previous to the SDoF system and the Newmark-beta time-integration
gradient – relative deviation). method for linear acceleration is used to solve the dynamic nonlin-
2. Intersection of the initial stiffness line with the maximum spec- ear equilibrium equation for the evaluation of the SDoF response.
tral acceleration of the capacity curve. The successive loading cycles follow a plain hysteretic curve with
3. Coordinates of the nominal value of the capacity curve (i.e. parallel unloading and reloading paths whose slope is the original
secant stiffness line). elastic behavior of the structure, which do not currently account
for pinching or for degradation of unloading stiffness. More
Similarly, three different options are available to define the ulti- advanced models will be considered in the future. The maximum
mate point (du, au) (see Fig. 2): response from the entire record defines the spectral displacements
and accelerations used to characterize the demand at the AP. It is
1. The spectral displacement corresponding to the collapse drift noted that the inelastic dynamic analysis only needs to be carried
(i.e. the last limit state in the considered damage scale). out on an SDoF system under the applied accelerogram at each AP,
2. The spectral displacement corresponding to the last point of the increasing the rapidity of the assessment.
capacity curve.
3. The spectral displacement corresponding to a 20% drop of the 2.5. Determination of the PP and EDPs
spectral acceleration with respect to the maximum capacity.
In ADRS space the AP on the capacity curve and the inelastic
Finally, an equal-energy criterion may also be used, where the demand calculated for the matching inelastic SDoF (with elastic
spectral ordinate of the yield point (or the intermediate point in period and ductility determined by the idealized capacity curve
the case of TL) is adjusted in order to obtain the same areas under to the AP) lie on a diagonal that passes through the origin and
the idealized and actual capacity curves. the AP. Although not used in the analysis, this diagonal theoreti-
In addition, the manual selection of the global yield point, ulti- cally represents the effective period of an equivalent linear SDoF.
mate point and, in the case of TL, the point of the second change in The inelastic demand and capacity curve can be directly compared
slope, is also allowed. The aim in fitting the model to the capacity along this diagonal, as they have the same ductility. If these points
curve is to select the parameters of the models such that they match, then the PP is reached. Exact matching is difficult to achieve
reproduce the capacity curve as closely as possible. The different from the predefined APs, which are spaced at subjective intervals
 T. Rossetto et al. / Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348 341

along the capacity curve. Hence, it can be beneficial to draw a ‘‘re- used are fck = 29 MPa and fyk = 450 MPa, respectively. Both frames
sponse curve” by joining together the inelastic demand values of Sa are modelled using the finite element platform SeismoStruct
and Sd calculated at each analysis point, as the PP can be efficiently [22]. The effect of confinement is taken into account by imple-
determined from the intersection of the capacity curve with this menting the confinement model proposed by Mander et al. [23].
demand curve (see Fig. 1d). An insufficient level of confinement is observed in all sections of
In order to determine the EDPs corresponding to each PP, the the Pre-Code building: the confinement factor, k, is defined as
capacity curve coordinates at the PP are used to determine the cor- the confined-unconfined concrete compressive stress ratio and
responding load step of the nonlinear static analysis file, and rele- ranges from 1.01 to 1.05. The uniaxial hysteretic stress-strain rela-
vant response parameters (e.g. MIDR) are read from this file. tion proposed by Menegotto and Pinto [24] is used to represent the
Damage thresholds of EDP can be determined from an appropri- reinforcement steel behavior with the parameters proposed by
ately selected damage scale for the structure being analyzed (as Filippou et al. [25] for the inclusion of isotropic strain-hardening
discussed in Section 3.2). effects. To account for material inelasticity, a distributed plasticity
approach is used. Thus each RC section consists of a total of 150
2.6. Construction of fragility curves steel, confined concrete and unconfined concrete fibers.
Two sets of static PO analyses are carried out with different
In order to generate fragility functions, the capacity spectrum applied lateral load distributions, namely uniform and triangular.
assessment is repeated for each structural model subjected to Lateral loads are incrementally applied to the side nodes of the
ground motions of increasing intensity, either by scaling each structure. These lateral loads are proportionally distributed with
earthquake record or adopting a range of earthquake records with respect to the local masses at each floor level (uniform distribu-
increasing intensity. A statistical curve fitting method is then tion) and the interstory heights (triangular distribution). In both
adopted to fit a fragility curve shape from the IM - EDP cloud gen- cases, the PO analysis is carried out until a predefined target dis-
erated. Within FRACAS either a Least Squares (LS) approach or a placement is reached, corresponding to the expected collapse state.
Generalized Linear Model (GLM) can be used for the curve fitting, Although APO approaches are generally perceived to provide better
and confidence bounds derived using a bootstrap analysis of the estimates of structure response than conventional static PO, partic-
data points. The former approach (LS) is more commonly used in ularly when higher modes and structural softening are important
the fragility literature but the method assumptions may be vio- (as shown in many previous studies, such as [26]), it is decided
lated by the data, as shown by Rossetto et al. [17]. not to adopt APO in the current comparison study. Inclusion of
FRACAS has been developed into a Matlab-based automated APO in FRACAS is computationally very expensive when dealing
tool, which is freely available at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/epicentre/ with a large number of unscaled accelerograms (as in the current
resources/software or from the authors. This automated tool is study), as an APO needs to be developed for each accelerogram
used to carry out the analyses presented in the following sections used.
to show the features of the developed approach. Table 1 summarizes the structural and dynamic properties
associated with each of the case-study building models, namely
mass of the system m, fundamental period T1 as well as the modal
3. Comparison of FRACAS with NLTHA mass participation at the first mode of vibration.
Fig. 4 shows the static PO for the case-study buildings for both
NLTHA provides a benchmark against which to test the perfor- uniform (UNI-PO) and triangular (TRI-PO) lateral load distribu-
mance of simplified capacity spectrum approaches like FRACAS. tions. The curves are reported in terms of top center-of-mass dis-
Hence, in this section the differences in EDP estimates obtained placement divided by the total height of the structure (i.e., the
using FRACAS and NLTHA are investigated over a wide range of roof drift ratio, RDR) along the horizontal axis of the diagram,
IM values, for two case-study reinforced concrete (RC) moment and base shear divided by the building’s seismic weight along
resisting frames (MRF). The resulting differences in derived fragi- the vertical axis (i.e., base shear coefficient). These figures show
lity curves are also assessed. the capability of the structural model to directly simulate the
response up to collapse. No significant difference is observed in
3.1. The structural models and accelerograms the two pushover responses of the Pre-Code building and this is
consistent with the available literature (e.g., [27]); both predict a
Two four-story four-bay RC MRF are selected for use in the com- soft story failure of the structure at its ground floor. In the case
parison of FRACAS with NLTHA. These structures, which share the of the Special-Code building, the UNI-PO results in a base-shear
same geometry, represent distinct vulnerability classes, as they are capacity that is 5.7% higher than its TRI-PO counterpart, with dam-
characterized by different material properties and reinforcement age predicted to be better distributed along the structure’s height
detailing. The first frame is designed to only sustain gravity loads (again consistently with the available literature on the topic).
following the Italian Royal Decree n. 2239 of 1939 [18] that regu- These pushover analyses are adopted in the FRACAS assessment
lated the design of RC buildings in Italy up to 1971, hereafter called and are also used in Section 3.3 to define the structural response
the Pre-Code building; the second frame is designed according to parameter thresholds of the damage limit states used in the fragi-
the latest Italian seismic code (or NIBC08; [19]), fully consistent lity assessment.
with Eurocode 8 (EC8; [20]), following the High Ductility Class A set of 150 unscaled ground motion records from the SIMBAD
(DCH) rules, hereafter called the Special-Code building. Interstory database (Selected Input Motions for displacement-Based Assess-
heights, span of each bay and cross-sections dimensions for each ment and Design; [28]), is used to compare FRACAS with NLTHA
case-study building are reported in Fig. 3. The considered frames and to test some of the model assumptions in FRACAS. SIMBAD
are regular (both in plan and in elevation). Details regarding the includes a total of 467 tri-axial accelerograms, consisting of two
design of the buildings are available in De Luca et al. [21]. horizontal (X-Y) and one vertical (Z) components, generated by
In the case of the Pre-Code building, concrete with characteris- 130 worldwide seismic events (including main shocks and after-
tic compressive strength fck = 19 MPa and reinforcement of charac- shocks). In particular, the database includes shallow crustal earth-
teristic yield stress fyk = 360 MPa are used. In the case of the quakes with moment magnitudes (Mw) ranging from 5 to 7.3 and
Special-Code building the characteristic compressive strength of epicentral distances R 6 35 km. A subset of 150 records is consid-
concrete and the characteristic yield stress of steel reinforcement ered here to provide a statistically significant number of strong-
342 T. Rossetto et al. / Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348

Fig. 3. Elevation dimensions and member cross-sections of the pre-code (left) and special-code (right) RC frames.

Table 1 olds are defined in the HRC Damage scale for RC MRF designed to
Structural and dynamic properties of the case-study buildings. modern seismic codes. The MIDR thresholds associated with each
Building type Total mass, m [tonnes] T1 [s] Modal mass participation damage state are then derived from observations of when one of
(1st Mode) (%) the identified response characteristics first occurs in the building’s
Pre-code 172.9 0.902 95.4 PO analysis. In this way the damage state EDP definitions are tai-
Special-code 172.9 0.506 92.8 lored to each building (see Table 2 for the thresholds used here
for the two model structures). It is also noted that the HRC defined
‘‘Partial Collapse” limit state corresponds to the Dolšek and Fajfar
[30] ‘‘Near Collapse” limit state and the Silva et al. [27] ‘‘Complete”
motion records of engineering relevance for the applications pre-
damage limit state. These damage state definitions are used to gen-
sented in this paper. These records are selected by first ranking
erate all the fragility functions presented in this paper and the fra-
the 467 records in terms of their PGA values (by using the geomet-
gility curve parameters for all the functions shown in this paper are
ric mean of the two horizontal components) and then keeping the
presented in Table A.1 in Appendix A.
component with the largest PGA value (for the 150 stations with
In this paper, fragility curves are fit to the analysis data using
highest mean PGA).
the GLM approach with a Probit link function (see [17]). As men-
tioned in Section 2.6 the GLM model is theoretically more valid
3.2. Construction of fragility curves than LS, which assumptions are violated by the data used for the
fragility assessment [17]. It is highlighted here that the choice of
In the following comparison, and in the rest of the paper, fragi- statistical model fitting technique may significantly influence the
lity functions are derived from the analysis (FRACAS or NLTHA) shape of the resulting fragility function. As an example, Fig. 5
results by adopting thresholds of MIDR to define three damage shows the fragility functions obtained using GLM and LS for the
states. The structure response characteristics associated with each Special-Code building assessed for the 150 unscaled records with
damage state description are summarized in Table 2 and are based FRACAS. It can be observed that the GLM and LS approaches result
on a re-interpretation of the Homogenized Reinforced Concrete in large discrepancy between the fragility curves derived for DS2,
(HRC) damage scale of Rossetto and Elnashai [29] and that in with the GLM approach showing a greater variability in the results.
Dolšek and Fajfar [30]. This has been necessary as no MIDR thresh-

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Static PO curves for (a) the pre-code frame building and (b) the special-code building.
 T. Rossetto et al. / Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348 343

Table 2
Description of damage states and damage state thresholds used in this paper.

HRC damage state DS1 - Moderate DS2 - Extensive DS3 - Partial collapse
Observed damage Cracking in most beams and columns. Some Ultimate strength is reached in Failure of some columns or
yielding in a limited number. Limited concrete some elements impending soft-story failure
spalling
Response characteristics (threshold Global yield displacement, as obtained by the Maximum moment capacity of  There is a drop in strength to
defined by the first occurrence of any idealized curvea a supporting column is reached 80% of the maximum global
of these) capacity.
 Shear failure of one element.
 The rotation capacity of a criti-
cal column is reached.
MIDR threshold pre-code structure [%] 0.49 1.53 3.00
MIDR threshold special-code structure 0.95 2.11 5.62
[%]
a
In the present study, the EPP idealization model is used and the yielding point is determined using the first deviation (with an absolute gradient tolerance equal to 0.25).

1 MIDR values predicted by NLTHA across the 150 ground motion

records (average error is less around 25% across the considered
0.8 models), particularly when nonlinear structural response is consid-
ered (average error is around 15% across the considered models).
P (DS ≥ dsi | Sa)

0.6 More in general, FRACAS generally tends to under-predict the

MIDR values across the various IM levels and this is expected given
0.4
the non-inclusion in the simplified method of (1) effect of higher
modes (even in the elastic range of response) and (2) hysteresis
ds1 models incorporating cyclic strength and stiffness deterioration.
0.2
A non-negligible bias is observed for lower EDP due to the idealiza-
ds
2 tion of the capacity curve. In fact, the elastic branch of the idealized
0
0 5 10 15 20 capacity model is obtained by directly connecting the origin to the
S (T ) [m/s2] first yield point, thus resulting in an initial stiffness (i.e., funda-
a 1
mental period) that is different from the one found for the actual
Fig. 5. Fragility functions derived by FRACAS using the GLM (sold lines) and the LS structure. Therefore the structural response in the elastic range
fitting (dashed lines) for the Special-Code building, TRI-PO, and EPP model.
may also be strongly influenced by the chose idealization strategy.
There are indications in the capacity spectrum assessment liter-
The GLM better captures the fact that there are only a limited num-
ature that the choice of capacity curve idealization affects the
ber of data points (observations) available for the higher damage
resulting PPs (e.g. [9]). This is also observed by the authors. How-
states. It is noted, that despite the intensity of the chosen records
ever, as discussed previously, one of the features of FRACAS is
being significant, too few data are available to derive the collapse
the ability to adopt different models for the capacity curve ideal-
damage state curve for the Special-Code building (without scaling
ization. For instance, both TL and EPP idealizations were trialed
the records). Hence, this damage state curve is not presented in the
to represent the response of the Pre-Code structure, which displays
comparisons made in Section 3.3.
a (monotonic) degrading response curve after its maximum capac-
ity. It is observed that the TL idealization results in a better approx-
3.3. Comparison of FRACAS with NLTHA in terms of EDP estimates and imation of the MIDR predicted by NLTHA than the EPP idealization,
fragility functions particularly near collapse. Furthermore, in carrying out this assess-
ment a high sensitivity to the selected shape of the TL curve was
Fig. 6 compares the MIDR values obtained from the NLTHA for observed. Despite this, the choice of capacity curve idealization
the two frames with those estimated by FRACAS using the two does not significantly affect the resulting FRACAS fragility curves,
pushover analyses as input. Results show that for both case- as seen in Fig. 7, particularly when the GLM approach is employed
study structures FRACAS provides a reasonable estimate of the in the statistical fitting. A greater effect may be observed for struc-

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Comparison of FRACAS with NLTHA in terms of MIDR: (a) pre-code building, TRI-PO, and TL and (b) special-code building, TRI-PO, and EPP model.
344 T. Rossetto et al. / Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348

1 4. Investigation of the effect of record-to-record variability on

fragility curves
0.8
P (DS ≥ ds | S )
a

To investigate the effect of record-to-record variability on fragi-

0.6
i

lity curves, the Pre-Code building presented in Section 3.1 is

0.4 assessed under different suites of appropriately selected accelero-
ds1
grams using FRACAS. As the aim is to show how FRACAS captures
0.2 ds
2 the response spectral variability and translates it into fragility
ds3 curves, natural accelerograms (i.e., recorded during past earth-
0
0 5 10 15 20 quake events) are selected and modified records are generated,
S (T ) [m/s2]
a 1
based on the match of their spectra to a target spectrum. Although
the current best practice does not require the compatibility or the
Fig. 7. Fragility functions derived by FRACAS using TL (solid lines) and EPP (dashed matching with a given target spectrum (contrary to code-based
lines) for pre-code building and TRI-PO.
procedures for single structures; e.g. [32]) neither does it recom-
mend the use of a single hazard level (i.e., corresponding to just
one return period of the seismic hazard) for fragility analysis
(e.g., [33]), the approach followed here is deemed appropriate to
tures with infill where the PO curve presents different successive
investigate whether FRACAS is able to capture record-to-record
phases due to the failure of infill panels and where the EPP ideal-
variability.
ization provides a very poor fit to the PO curve. This will be inves-
tigated in future studies.
Comparisons between fragility functions developed using
4.1. Earthquake spectrum and input accelerograms for the structural
NLTHA as compared to simplified assessment methods is not often
assessment
presented in the literature, and so it is discussed here. As expected,
the under-prediction in EDPs by FRACAS is seen to translate
The base spectrum chosen to carry out the structural assess-
directly into a lower fragility prediction compared to NLTHA (see
ment in FRACAS is the Type 1 EC8 [20] spectrum for soil class B
Fig. 8). Despite this, it is observed that the two assessment meth-
(stiff soil), with a PGA of 0.17 g for a 475-year return period (i.e.,
ods provide similar fragility functions for all damage states of the
10% probability of exceedance in 50 years). This PGA is taken
Pre-Code building. However, larger discrepancies are observed
directly from the detailed probabilistic seismic hazard assessment
for the Special-Code building, especially for the D2 damage state.
(PSHA) of Stucchi et al. [34] for Italy and corresponds to a site
These discrepancies are actually observed to arise from the sensi-
located in Naples, Southern Italy, representative of moderate-to-
tivity of the fragility curve fitting (in both approaches) to small
high seismicity regions. Sets of accelerograms are chosen such that
numbers of observations rather than from the ability of FRACAS
their mean spectrum matches the base spectrum over structural
to simulate the NLTHA response of the building. For example, only
response periods 0.05–2 s with a lower limit tolerance of 10%. As
8 out of 150 records result in damage DS2 in the Special-Code
EC8 does not provide any restrictions on the higher limit tolerance
building when NLTHA is employed, compared to only 5 in the case
of the selected records, a maximum higher limit tolerance of 30% is
of FRACAS. These number further decrease when looking at dam-
arbitrarily selected (e.g., [35]). EC8 Section 3.2.3.1.2 does instead
age DS3. The development of general guidelines as to how many
provide guidance on the relevant range of structural periods over
analyses are required to create stable fragility functions, particu-
which to carry out the matching, specifying this range in terms
larly when cloud-type approaches are used, is a subject of active
of the structural fundamental period of vibration (T1) as 0.2T1 to
research by several authors (e.g. [31]) and not investigated here,
2T1. In the case of the considered case-study structure (Pre-Code
however the importance of considering this is highlighted by this
building), the latter period range lies well within the adopted per-
example. Overall, FRACAS is observed to predict well the EDP
iod range for matching. In the case of the natural records, the soft-
response observed in NLTHA to failure in the case of the Pre-
ware REXEL [35] is used to select unscaled accelerograms from the
Code building, and hence only this structure is adopted in the fol-
three databases included in the software, namely Selected Input
lowing sections of the paper where a study of the ability of FRACAS
Motions for displacement-Based Assessment and Design (SIMBAD,
to capture the effect of record-to-record variability on fragility
[28]), the European Strong-motion Database (ESD) [36] and the
functions is presented.
Italian Accelerometric Archive (ITACA) [37]. It is worth noting that

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Fragility functions derived by FRACAS (solid line) and NLTHA (dashed line): (a) Pre-code building, TRI-PO, and TL and (b) special-code building, TRI-PO, and EPP model.
 T. Rossetto et al. / Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348 345

Table 3
Summary of record data returned by REXEL for the REAL-EC8:475 set.

ID Earthquake name Date Mw Fault mechanism Epicentral distance [km] EC8 Site class Database
147y Friuli (aftershock) 9/15/1976 6 thrust 14 B ESD
198x,y Montenegro 4/15/1979 6.9 thrust 21 A ESD
333x,y Alkion 2/24/1981 6.6 normal 20 C ESD
879y Dinar 10/1/1995 6.4 normal 8 C ESD
1726y Adana 6/27/1998 6.3 strike slip 30 C ESD
103y Friuli (aftershock) 9/15/1976 5.9 thrust 16 A ITACA
171y Irpinia 11/23/1980 6.9 Normal 19 B ITACA
381x Umbria-Marche (aftershock) 9/26/1997 6 Normal 6 D ITACA
22x W Tottori Prefecture 10/6/2000 6.6 strike-slip 19 B SIMBAD
146x S Suruga Bay 8/10/2009 6.2 reverse 25 B SIMBAD
411y Hyogo - Ken Nanbu 1/16/1995 6.9 strike-slip 17 C SIMBAD
437x Parkfield 9/28/2004 6 strike-slip 10 B SIMBAD
438x,y Parkfield 9/29/2004 6 strike-slip 15 B SIMBAD
443x Imperial Valley 10/15/1979 6.5 strike-slip 25 B SIMBAD
449x Superstition Hills 11/24/1987 6.6 strike-slip 20 C SIMBAD
458y Northridge 1/17/1994 6.7 reverse 11 C SIMBAD
459y Northridge 1/18/1994 6.7 reverse 20 C SIMBAD

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 9. (a)–(c) Elastic response spectra of the three sets of accelerograms (in grey), corresponding average (in red) and target spectrum used for the selection (in black): (a)
REAL-EC8:475, (b) MATCHED-EC8:475, (c) SIMQKE-EC8:475; and (d) peak-to-trough variability of accelerograms. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

the EC8 approach for ground motion selection is not sufficiently 1. Twenty natural accelerograms (unscaled) to be compatible with
conservative for the derivation of fragility functions and this guide- the target spectrum over the period range 0.05–2 s (thereafter
line has not been developed for this purpose. However, as dis- referred to as REAL-EC8:475).
cussed above, the main aim of the simple exercise carried out in 2. The same accelerograms as in REAL-EC8:475 adjusted using
this section is to demonstrate FRACAS’ ability to capture record- wavelets so that their spectra better match the target
to-record variability. (MATCHED-EC8:475). The program SeismoMatch [38] was
In particular, three suites of input accelerograms are adopted to adopted to adjust earthquake accelerograms to match a specific
assess the effect of record-to-record variability on the fragility target response spectrum, using the wavelets algorithm pro-
curve produced for the Pre-Code building: posed by Hancock et al. [39].
346 T. Rossetto et al. / Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348

(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Fragility functions by FRACAS using the three sets of accelerograms for the Pre-Code building, TRI-PO, and TL: (a) REAL-EC8:475 (solid lines) versus SIMQKE-EC8:475
(dashed lines) and (b) REAL-EC8:475 (solid lines) versus MATCHED-EC8:475 (dashed lines).

the natural accelerograms. The variability shows a similar behavior

0.8
REAL−EC8:475 to that shown by Stafford and Bommer [41] but with higher abso-
MATCHED−EC8:475 lute values.
SIMQKE−EC8:475
0.6
4.2. Fragility assessment
σln MIDR

0.4
For the construction of fragility functions the three suites of
accelerograms presented in Section 4.1 are used to define the
0.2 demand spectra and are combined with the capacity curves
obtained from the PO analysis of the structure. FRACAS analyses
are carried out on the Pre-Code building with each of the ground
0
0 1 2 3 motion sets, scaled to varying spectral accelerations (Sa). Fragility
Sa (T1) [m/s2] curves are derived for each set of accelerograms (300 data points
each, i.e. 20 original records scaled 15 times) using a GLM statisti-
Fig. 11. Standard deviation of ln MIDR as a function of spectral acceleration for the cal curve fitting approach. The resulting curves follow a cumulative
pre-code building, TRI-PO, and TL. lognormal distribution with mean a and standard deviation b as
the fragility parameters (i.e., the parameters of the associated nor-
3. Twenty accelerograms generated using SIMQKE [40], a method mal distribution). The fragility curve parameters for all the func-
(and associated software) that can generate response- tions are presented in Table A.1 in Appendix A.
spectrum-compatible statistically-independent synthetic Fig. 10 shows that the fragility curves derived for MATCHED-
motions showing very little dispersion in their spectra and EC8:475 and SIMQKE-EC8:475 differ in both median and standard
matching the target closely (SIMQKE-EC8:475). deviation from the fragility curves derived for the REAL-EC8:475
set, especially at the higher damage states. The initial record-to-
Table 3 presents basic information on the ground motions used record variability is efficiently translated to the final fragility
within the first two record sets. Within FRACAS these sets of curves, as shown by the different values of the standard deviation
accelerograms are scaled several times for the capacity spectrum b. The use of scaled accelerograms allows the computation of the
assessment at increasing IM levels. standard deviation of the MIDR within each bin of IM (i.e. set of
The elastic spectra for the three suites of accelerograms are 20 ground motions scaled according to Sa(T1)), as shown in
shown in Fig. 9a–c together with their average, and the target spec- Fig. 11. It is noted that the variability in the structural response
trum. Stafford and Bommer [41] postulate that, when deriving fra- increases with the imposed intensity level: this observation
gility curves accounting for ground motion variability, the peak-to- emphasizes the role of the specific nonlinear computations that
trough variability in their response spectra should not be too small. are performed in FRACAS during the estimation of the inelastic
They define the peak-to-trough variability as the standard devia- response spectrum. Once the yield limit is reached, the relation
tion of the natural logarithm of spectral ordinates over a number between the IM and the structural response shows high
of records and a range of response periods defined by the ‘band- heteroscedasticity. The relative variability between the three sets
width’, i.e. the range of periods surrounding a central period. This of accelerograms also follows a similar trend to the peak-to-
bandwidth roughly corresponds to the degree of structural nonlin- trough variability. It is highlighted that the dispersion in the struc-
earity that is expected and the contribution of higher mode effects. tural response tends to stabilize or even decrease for higher inten-
With the capacity spectrum method used here the structure is not sities due to a peculiarity of FRACAS, which considers PPs
affected by spectral ordinates with periods shorter than the natural exceeding the ultimate point as ‘‘collapse” events, and thus sets
period (equal to 0.902 s for the Pre-Code structure). Therefore, we their value to the last point of the curve.
modify the definition of the peak-to-trough variability to account The reason for the different medians (a) of the MATCHED-
for only those periods longer than the natural period. The peak- EC8:475 and SIMQKE-EC8:475, compared to the REAL-EC8:475 fra-
to-trough variability for each suite of accelerograms is plotted in gility curves, particularly for DS3, could be related to the bias intro-
Fig. 9d as function of an elongated period (equal to k  T1) rather duced by spectral matching recently evidenced by Seifried and
than bandwidth. Baker [42]. These authors studied the reason for the observed
Fig. 9 shows that, as expected, the MATCHED and SIMQKE un-conservative bias in fragility curves when closely matched
records show similar but considerably less spectral variability than spectra are used (i.e. the effect that is observed when comparing
 T. Rossetto et al. / Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348 347

Table A.1
Fragility parameters (mean a in m/s2 and standard deviation b).

Building Capacity model Ground motions Derivation method D1 D2 D3

a b a b a b
Special code NLTHA Unscaled GLM 3.987 0.360 12.059 0.300 – –
EPP Unscaled GLM 5.639 0.225 15.291 0.374 – –
EPP Unscaled LS 5.995 0.159 13.677 0.159 – –
Pre-code NLTHA Unscaled GLM 0.669 0.302 2.531 0.480 5.498 0.584
TL Unscaled GLM 1.199 0.003 3.273 0.241 5.384 0.468
EPP Unscaled GLM 1.230 0.002 3.084 0.277 5.317 0.467
TL REAL-EC8:475 GLM 1.179 0.056 3.115 0.289 4.466 0.359
TL SIMQKE-EC8:475 GLM 1.143 0.001 2.938 0.161 3.780 0.181
TL MATCHED-EC8:475 GLM 1.136 0.012 2.973 0.214 3.957 0.213

REAL-EC8:475 and MATCHED-EC8:475). They show that this bias is Acknowledgments

solely due to the loss of extreme spectral ordinates (i.e. peaks) in
closely matched spectra, which are usually responsible for large The FRACAS procedure has been implemented in a Matlab pro-
deformations in the structural system: the nonlinear relation gram through a collaborative effort between University College
between the IM and EDP value (i.e. with higher IMs leading to a London (UCL) and Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières
much larger EDPs variation than proportionally smaller IMs) cou- (BRGM), France. Pierre Gehl’s contribution to this study was par-
pled with the spectrum variability, therefore, explains the loss of tially funded by a Carnot Mobility grant. AIR Worldwide and the
higher EDP values when using closely matched spectra. This obser- UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
vation raises the question as to whether the natural record-to- are thanked for supporting Stylianos Minas’ Engineering Doctorate
record variability, which is originally not present for matched through the UCL Centre in Urban Sustainability and Resilience (EP/
records, should be added back in during the final steps. G037698/1).

Appendix A. Parameters for all derived fragility curves

5. Conclusions
Table A.1.
This paper presents a new approach for the derivation of fragi-
lity curves, named FRAgility through Capacity spectrum ASsess-
ment (FRACAS). FRACAS adapts the capacity spectrum References
assessment method and uses inelastic response spectra derived
from earthquake accelerograms to construct fragility curves. The [1] D’Ayala D, Meslem A, Vamvatsikos D, Porter K, Rossetto T, Crowley H, Silva V.
paper compares the predicted MIDR response obtained by FRACAS Guidelines for analytical vulnerability assessment, vulnerability global
component project. Pavia: GEM foundation; 2014.
and NLTHA for two case-study 4-story RC frames assessed under [2] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng
150 accelerograms. FRACAS is seen to represent well the response Struct Dynam 2002;31(3):491–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141.
of both case study structures when compared to NLTHA. The case [3] Jalayer F, Cornell CA. Alternative nonlinear demand estimation methods for
probability-based seismic assessments. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2009;38
study application also highlights the sensitivity of the FRACAS (8):951–72.
EDP predictions to the adopted capacity curve idealization, but [4] Freeman SA, Nicoletti JP, Tyrell JV. Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic
shows an insensitivity of the derived fragility function to the ideal- risk – a case study of puget sound naval shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. In:
Proceedings of U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering. Berkeley.
ization model choice so long as the idealization model provides a
p. 113–22.
reasonable fit to the real capacity curve. The statistical model used [5] ATC. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete building. Report (ATC-
to fit the fragility function is seen to have a significant influence on 40). California: Applied Technology Council; 1996.
the resulting curves, and it is highlighted that the sensitivity of the [6] FEMA. FEMA 356: prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation
of buildings. Publication n°356. The American Society of Civil Engineers for the
fragility function to number of analyses must always be checked. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington; 2000.
The paper also shows how FRACAS is able to capture the inelas- [7] Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra.
tic record-to-record variability and properly translate it into the Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1999;28:979–93.
[8] Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design.
resulting fragility curves. In particular, through an example appli- Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(3):573–92.
cation, it is shown that the variability in spectral ordinates for peri- [9] Rossetto T, Elnashai A. A new analytical procedure for the derivation of
ods beyond the natural period of the undamaged structure is displacement-based vulnerability curves for populations of RC structures. Eng
Struct 2005;27:397–409.
directly correlated to the standard deviations of the fragility [10] Gehl P, Douglas J, Rossetto T, Macabuag J, Nassirpour A, Minas S, Duffour P.
curves. A variant of the peak-to-trough measure of the variability Investigating the use of record-to-record variability in static capacity spectrum
in the input spectra (accounting only for periods longer than the approaches. In: Proceedings of ASCE-ICVRAM-ISUMA conference. Liverpool.
[11] Rossetto T, Gehl P, Minas S, Nassirpour S, Macabuag J, Duffour P, Douglas J.
natural period) is proposed and is seen to provide a useful measure Sensitivity analysis of different capacity approaches to assumptions in the
of this variability. Consequently, it is concluded that differences modeling, capacity and demand representations. In: Proceedings of ASCE-
between fragility curves derived using static PO approaches can ICVRAM-ISUMA conference. Liverpool.
[12] Silva V, Crowley H, Pinho R, Varum H. Investigation of the characteristics of
be partially explained by differences in the input spectra, even if
Portuguese regular moment-frame RC buildings and development of a
the mean target spectra are similar. vulnerability model. Bull Earthq Eng 2014;13(5):1455–90.
Overall, the paper demonstrates that FRACAS is able to repre- [13] Elnashai AS. Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake
sent the effects of record-to-record variability in fragility curves, applications. Struct Eng Mech 2001;12(1):51–69.
[14] Rossetto T. Vulnerability curves for the seismic assessment of reinforced
and has the advantage of simplicity and rapidity over other meth- concrete building populations Ph.D. Thesis. London: Department of Civil and
ods that use accelerograms directly. Environmental Engineering, Imperial College; 2004.
348 T. Rossetto et al. / Engineering Structures 125 (2016) 337–348

[15] De Luca F, Vamvatsikos D, Iervolino I. Near-optimal piecewise linear fits of [30] Dolšek M, Fajfar P. The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of a
static pushover capacity curves for equivalent SDOF analysis. Earthquake Eng four-storey reinforced concrete frame – a deterministic assessment. Eng Struct
Struct Dynam 2013;42(2):523–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2225. 2008;30(7):1991–2001.
[16] Clough R, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures. New York: McGraw Hill Inc; 1993. [31] Gehl P, Douglas J, Seyedi D. Influuence of the number of dynamic analyse on
[17] Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Grant D, Maqsood T. Guidelines for empirical the accuracy of structural response estimates. Earthquake Spectra 2015;31
vulnerability assessment. GEM Technical Report. Pavia: GEM Foundation; (1):97–113.
2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1173.4407. [32] NIST. Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing
[18] Reggio Decreto 16/11/1939 n. 2229. Norme per la esecuzione delle opere in response-history analyses. NIST GCR 11-917-15. Prepared by the NEHRP
conglomerato cementizio semplice e armato. G.U. n. 92 del 18/04/1940 [in Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and
Italian]. Technology: Gaithersburg (MD); 2011.
[19] Italian Building Code. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. Rome: Gazzetta [33] Lin T, Baker JW. Introducing adaptive incremental dynamic analysis: a new
Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana; 2008 [in Italian]. tool for linking ground motion selection and structural response assessment.
[20] EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – part In: 11th International conference on structural safety and reliability. New
1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. [Authority: The York.
European Union Per Regulation 305/2011, Directive 98/34/EC, Directive 2004/ [34] Stucchi M, Meletti C, Montaldo V, Crowley H, Calvi GM, Boschi E. Seismic
18/EC]: Brussels; 2004. hazard as-sessment (2003–2009) for the Italian building code 2011. Bull
[21] De Luca F, Elefante L, Iervolino I, Verderame GM. Strutture esistenti e di nuova Seismol Soc Am 2011;101:1885–911.
progettazione : comportamento sismico a confronto. In: Anidis 2009 XIII [35] Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E. REXEL: computer aided record selection for
Convegno - L’ ingegneria Sismica in Italia. Bologna; 2009 [in Italian]. code-based seismic structural analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 2009;8:339–62. http://
[22] SeismoSoft. SeismoStruct: a computer program for static and dynamic dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9146-1.
nonlinear analyzes of framed structures Available at:Available from: <http:// [36] Ambraseys N, Smit P, Douglas J, Margaris B, Sigbjörnsson R, Olafsson S,
www.seismosoft.com>2007. Suhadolc P, Costa G. Internet site for European strong-motion data. Bollettino
[23] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 2004;45(3):113–29.
concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26. [37] Pacor F, Paolucci R, Luzi L, Sabetta F, Spinelli A, Gorini A, Nicoletti M, Marcucci
[24] Menegotto M, Pinto PE. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane S, Filippi L, Dolce M. Overview of the Italian strong motion database ITACA 1.0.
frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements Bulletin. Earthq Eng 2011;9(6):1723–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-
under combined normal force and bending. In: Proceedings of symposium on 011-9327-6.
the resistance and ultimate deformability of structures anted on by well [38] SeismoSoft. SeismoMatch v2.1 – a computer program for spectrum matching
defined loads. Lisbon. of earthquake records Available at:Available from: <http://
[25] Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic www.seismosoft.com>2007.
behavior of reinforced concrete joints. Report EERC 83- [39] Hancock J, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson N, Bommer J, Markatis A, McCoy E,
19. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Mendis R. An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded
California; 1983. earthquake ground motion using wavelets. J Earthq Eng 2006;10(1):67–89.
[26] Antoniou S, Pinho R. Development and verification of a displacement-based [40] Gasparini DA, Vanmarcke EH. SIMQKE: a program for artificial motion
adaptive pushover procedure. J Earthquake Eng 2004;8:643–61. generation. Cambridge: Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts
[27] Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H, Pinho R, Sousa R. Evaluation of analytical Institute of Technology; 1976.
methodologies used to derive vulnerability functions. Earthquake Eng Struct [41] Stafford PJ, Bommer JJ. Theoretical consistency of common record selection
Dynam 2014;43:181–204. strategies in performance-based earthquake engineering. Advances in
[28] Smerzini C, Galasso C, Iervolino I, Paolucci R. Ground motion record selection performance-based earthquake engineering. Geotech, Geol Earthq Eng
based on broadband spectral compatibility. Earthquake Spectra 2014;30 2010;13:49–58.
(4):1427–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/052312EQS197M. [42] Seifried AE, Baker JW. Spectral variability and its relationship to structural
[29] Rossetto T, Elnashai AS. Derivation of vulnerability functions for European- response estimated from scaled and spectrum-matched ground motions. In:
type RC structures based on observational data. Eng Struct 2003;25 10th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, frontiers of
(10):1241–63. earthquake engineering. Anchorage (Alaska).