009 Pooja Maharjan

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
THESIS NO: S009/075
Seismic Fragility Assessment of Rc Frame Structures Under Main Shock-
Aftershock Sequences Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis
by
Pooja Maharjan
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

LALITPUR, NEPAL
SEPTEMBER, 2021
COPYRIGHT
The author has agreed that the library, Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk
Campus, Institute of Engineering, may make this thesis freely available for inspection.
Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of this thesis
for scholarly purpose may be granted by the professor(s) who supervised the work
recorded herein or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department wherein the thesis
was done. It is understood that the recognition will be given to the author of this thesis
and to the Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of
Engineering in any use of the material of this thesis. Copying or publication or the
other use of this thesis for financial gain without approval of the Department of Civil
Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering and author‟s written
permission is prohibited.
Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of the material in this thesis
in whole or in part should be addressed to:
………………………………
Head of Department
Department of Civil Engineering
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering
Lalitpur, Nepal
2
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
The undersigned certify that he/she has read, recommended to the Institute Of
Engineering for acceptance, a thesis entitled, “Seismic fragility assessment of RC
Frame Structures under Main shock- After shock sequence using Incremental
Dynamic Analysis” submitted by Pooja Maharjan (075/MSStE/009) in partial
fulfillment of requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Structural
Engineering.
----------------------------
Supervisor, Prof .Dr. Prem Nath Maskey
Institute of Engineering
Pulchowk Campus
----------------------------
External Examiner, Er. Binay Charan Shrestha
----------------------------
Program Coordinator, Prof. Dr. Kamal Bahadur Thapa
Institute of Engineering
Pulchowk Campus
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my respected supervisor

Prof. Dr. Prem Nath Maskey for his continuous support and motivation throughout
my research work. His helpful guidance and valuable suggestion made me work
harder than I ever could. I am also very thankful to Er. Sudip Karanjit for his valuable
help and critical suggestions during my work.
I would also like to acknowledge all the faculty members of Department of Civil
Engineering for the knowledge and concepts they gave me during my study at IOE,
Pulchowk Campus.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family and friends for their inspiration,
encouragement and invaluable supports all through my academic life.
4
ABSTRACT
Earthquakes are major unpredictable natural phenomenon which often results in major
disasters. In any real earthquake, shaking occurs in sequence of foreshocks, main
shock and aftershocks. These repeated earthquakes may occur several times with in
even few hours or minutes leaving very limited time between occurrences of tremors.
This may hamper the re-occupancy and restoration activities of structures in post
disaster situations. When structures are subjected to repeated earthquakes, structural
damages gets further accumulated which results in degradation in stiffness and
strength characteristics of structural members. Generally, Aftershocks may have
smaller magnitude than main shock but it may have higher peak ground acceleration,
longer time duration than main shock. Hence, after a major earthquake, it is important
to check whether damaged buildings can continue to be occupied, also keeping threat
of aftershocks in consideration. This study is mainly focused on fragility assessment
of RC framed structure designed according to the Nepal National Building codes of
practice under single and repeated ground motions. Incremental dynamic analysis is
performed using SAP2000. Results obtained in this study are evaluated in terms of
lateral displacement, residual displacement, and maximum inter-story drift ratio for
particular peak ground acceleration. Depending on the results it is concluded that
repeated earthquakes have significant effects on seismic responses of structure. It is
also found that seismic vulnerability considerably increases when structure is exposed
to sequence earthquake.
5
TABLE OF CONTENT
COPYRIGHT .................................................................................................................... 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................ 4
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... 5
TABLE OF CONTENT.................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 13
1.1 Background of study ..................................................................................... 13

1.2 Need of Research .......................................................................................... 14
1.3 Objectives and Purpose of Study .................................................................. 15
1.4 Methodology ................................................................................................. 15
1.5 Organization of Thesis .................................................................................. 16
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF CODE PROVISIONS AND LITERATURE ............... 18
2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 18

2.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 Performance Based Earthquake Engineering .............................................. 18
2.2.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis ................................................................... 18
2.2.3 Approach of Fragility Analysis ................................................................... 19
2.2.4 Effects of sequence earthquakes on dynamic performance of buildings ..... 20
2.2.5 Residual Displacement ................................................................................ 21
2.2.6 Collapse Capacity ........................................................................................ 21
2.3 Review of codes ................................................................................................. 22
2.3.1 Nepal National Building Code NBC 105: 2020 .......................................... 23
2.3.2 Indian Standard IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 ....................................................... 24
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FORMULATION .................................................... 26
3.1 Performance based earthquake engineering ....................................................... 26

3.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis .......................................................................... 26
3.2.1 IDA Algorithm ............................................................................................ 27
3.3 Fragility function ................................................................................................ 27
3.4 Residual displacement ........................................................................................ 29
3.4.1 “Random walk” hypothesis with constant plastic displacement ................. 30
3.4.2 “Random walk” hypothesis with constant energy input .............................. 31
6
3.5 Collapse Capacity............................................................................................... 32
3.5.1 Non-Linear static procedure: ....................................................................... 32
3.5.2 Incremental dynamic analysis ..................................................................... 32
3.6 Method of analysis ............................................................................................. 33
3.6.1 Method of analysis....................................................................................... 33
3.6.2 Force-Displacement Relationships .............................................................. 34
3.6.3 Incremental Dynamic Analysis ................................................................... 35
3.6.4 IDA in SAP2000 .......................................................................................... 35
3.6.5 Fragility Analysis ........................................................................................ 36
3.7 Formulation used in this study ........................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY OF BUILDINGS .......................................................... 38
4.1 Assumptions of study ......................................................................................... 38

4.2. Limitation of study ............................................................................................ 38
4.3 Building Nomenclature ...................................................................................... 39
4.4 Materials and Section ......................................................................................... 40
4.5 Loads .................................................................................................................. 41
4.5.1 Seismic Weight ............................................................................................ 42
4.5.2 Load combination ........................................................................................ 42
CHAPTER 5: SELECTION OF GROUND MOTION DATA................................... 43
5.1 Selection of ground motion data ........................................................................ 43

5.2 Matching and Combining ground motion data .................................................. 44
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .......................................................... 49
6.1 Maximum Lateral Storey Displacement ............................................................ 50

6.2 Maximum Inter-story Drift Ratio (IDR) ............................................................ 54
6.2.1: Mean IDA Curve ....................................................................................... 57
6.3 Plastic Hinge Pattern .......................................................................................... 59
6.4 Residual Displacement ....................................................................................... 65
6.5 Results from Fragility Analysis.......................................................................... 68
6.5.1 Generation of Fragility curve ...................................................................... 69
6.5.2: Development of fragility curve .................................................................. 69
6.6 Collapse Capacity............................................................................................... 71
6.6.1Comparison of fragility curves for different limit states .............................. 71
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 75
7
7.1: Conclusion......................................................................................................... 75
7.2: Recommendations for future work.................................................................... 76
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 77
8
List of Symbols
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ATC Applied Technology Council
DL Dead load of the structure
DM Damage Measure
E Design earthquake load
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
fm Compressive stress in masonry
IDA Incremental Dynamic Analysis
IM Intensity Measure
NBC Nepal National Building Code
NDA Non-linear Dynamic Analysis
NTHA Non-linear Time History Analysis
IS Indian Standard
K Structural performance factor
LL Live load
MDF Multi Degree freedom
PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
PBEE Performance based earthquake engineering
POA Push Over Analysis
SDOF Single Degree of Freedom System
W Total seismic weight of the structure
Z Seismic zoning factor
µ Mean
σ Standard deviation
Ø Standardized Normal Distribution Function
9
List of Figures
Figure1.1: Methodology of study ..................................................................................... 16
Figure2.1: Methods to develop fragility analysis ............................................................. 20

Figure2.2: Spectral shape factor, Ch(T) for Equivalent Static Method ............................. 23
Figure2.3: Spectral Shape factor, Ch(T) for Modal Response Spectrum Method, Non-
Linear Time history analysis, Vertical loading parts and components ............................. 24
Figure2.4 Design acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) (Corresponding to 5% damping) ......... 25
Figure 3.1: Flowchart of PEER PBEE framework ........................................................... 26

Figure3.2: Example of response analysis result ................................................................ 30
Figure3.3: Random walk hypothesis with constant plastic displacement......................... 31
Figure3.4: Assumed behavior during a single plastic deformation .................................. 31
Figure3.5: Procedure to compute the residual displacement under the hypothesis of
constant energy input ........................................................................................................ 32
Figure3.6: Component of force displacement curve ......................................................... 34
Figure4.1: 3D of low rise building Figure4.2: 2D of low rise building ................ 39

Figure4.3: 3D of Midrise building Figure4.4: 3D of Midrise building ................ 39
Figure4.5: 3D of High rise building Figure4.6: 2D of High rise building ............. 40
Figure5.1: Unmatched response spectrum of Main shock ground motions...................... 45

Figure5.2 Matched response spectrum of combined ground motions .............................. 45
Figure5.3: Sequential earthquake (Friuli) ......................................................................... 46
Figure5.4: Sequential earthquake (Gorkha) ...................................................................... 46
Figure5.5: Sequential earthquake (Hollister) .................................................................... 47
Figure5.6: Sequential earthquake (Indiaburma) ............................................................... 47
Figure5.7: Sequential earthquake (Irpinia) ....................................................................... 47
Figure5.8: Sequential earthquake (Livermore) ................................................................. 48
Figure5.9: Sequential earthquake (Northridge) ................................................................ 48
Figure6.1: Takeda hysteresis model ................................................................................. 49

10
Figure6.2: Comparison of maximum displacement for main shock and combined
shock for low rise structure ............................................................................................... 51
shock for midrise structure................................................................................................ 52
shock for high rise structure .............................................................................................. 54
Figure6.5: IDA curve for Main shock: (a) Low rise (b) Midrise (c) High rise................. 55
Figure 6.6: IDA curve for Sequence earthquake: (a) Low rise (b) Midrise (c) High rise 56
Figure6.7: Comparison of Mean IDA curve of Main shock and Sequence earthquake:
(a) Low rise (b) Midrise (c) High rise ............................................................................... 58
Figure6.8: Comparison of Hinges pattern for different earthquakes for low rise
building ............................................................................................................................. 60
Figure6.9: Comparison of Hinges pattern for different earthquakes for Midrise
building ............................................................................................................................. 62
Figure6.10: Comparison of Hinges pattern for different earthquakes for High rise
building ............................................................................................................................. 64
Figure6.11: Residual Displacement after different sequence earthquakes for low rise
building ............................................................................................................................. 66
Figure6.12: Residual Displacement after different sequence earthquakes for midrise
building ............................................................................................................................. 66
building ............................................................................................................................. 67
Figure6.14: Steps to develop fragility curve ..................................................................... 69
Figure6.15: Comparison of Fragility curves for single and combined ground motions:
(a) Low rise (b) Midrise (c) High rise ............................................................................... 70
Figure6.16: Comparison of fragility curves for low rise structure for different limit
state: (a) OP (b) IO (c) DC (d) LS (e) CP ......................................................................... 72
Figure6.17: Comparison of fragility curves for midrise structure for different limit
Figure6.18: Comparison of fragility curves for high rise structure for different limit
.
11
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Soil parameters ................................................................................................ 23
Table 3.1: Damage threshold spectral displacements ....................................................... 28
Table 4.1: Column detail for low rise building ................................................................. 40

Table 4.2: Column detail for midrise building.................................................................. 41
Table 4.3: Column detail for high rise building ................................................................ 41
Table 5.2: List of earthquake ground motions .................................................................. 43
Table 6 .1: Defining limit states ........................................................................................ 57

Table 6.2: For low rise building........................................................................................ 68
Table 6.3: For midrise building ........................................................................................ 68
Table 6.4: For High building ............................................................................................ 68
12
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of study
Earthquakes are major unavoidable and unpredictable natural phenomenon which

often results in major disasters. In any real earthquake, shaking occurs in sequence.
Sometimes earthquake has foreshocks which are small earthquakes followed by large
major earthquakes. Largest earthquake is called Main shock which is generally
followed by smaller magnitude earthquakes known as „aftershocks‟. Aftershocks can
occur randomly and may repeat multiple numbers of times after the main shocks.
Looking at earthquakes occurred worldwide, Aftershocks may have smaller
magnitude than main shocks but it may have higher peak ground acceleration, longer
time duration than main shock. So, Aftershocks can cause addition to damages caused
to structures and infrastructure after main shock hampering their reoccupation and
restoration in post-disaster situation.
Nepal being situated in diffuse collisional boundary of two tectonic plates- Indo-
Australian plate and Eurasian plate where Indian plate under thrusts Eurasian plate,
gets continuously hit by strong earthquakes and exposed to serious seismic hazard.
Nepal has experienced many powerful destructive historic earthquakes with moment
magnitude greater than or equal to 7.6 since 1255 which lead to serious loss of lives
and sizeable economic loss.
Kathmandu Valley and adjoining areas are designated as a severe zone with seismic
zoning factor of 0.35 and categorized to soil type 'D' which is very soft soil sites
(According to NBC 105:2019). Looking back, this region has been widely damaged
during different historic earthquakes like 1408 earthquake- Bagamati Zone (Mw=8),
1767 earthquake- Northern Bagamati zone (Mw=7.9), 1833 Kathmandu- Bihar
earthquake (Mw=8), 1988 Kathmandu -Bihar earthquake (Mw=6.9). Recently in 2015,
an earthquake named Gorkha earthquake with moment magnitude 7.8 struck near
Kathmandu city in central Nepal which devastated rural villages around the region
and some of mostly densely populated parts of Kathmandu city. Two large main
shocks with magnitude 6.6 and 6.7 shook the region within one day and next day of
main shock with several dozen of smaller aftershocks during succeeding days which
further added no of death count and damaged large no of structures. In summary,
13
Nepal including Kathmandu lies in high seismic hazard zone and there is urgent need
to access the non-linear behavior and perform fragility assessment of RC buildings in
Kathmandu valley.
Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) is one of a rapidly growing idea

to address dynamic response of structure during earthquakes and it is presented in all
guidelines that were published: Vision 2000 (SEAOC, 1995), ATC-40 (ATC, 1996),
FEMA-273 (FEMA, 1997), and SAC/FEMA-350 (FEMA, 2000). Among the
different methods of PBEE, Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) is an emerging
structural analysis method that helps to study non-linear seismic behavior of
structures by extracting seismic demand in detail. Carrying out IDA involves
performing series of nonlinear dynamic analyses under a suite of multiply scaled
ground motion records. IDA also helps to perform Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis to calculate the mean annual frequencies of limit-state exccedance when it is
combined with fragility analysis (Vamvatsikos, 2002).
Many research works has been carried out focusing on fragility analysis and
development of fragility curves to estimate the probability of damage and seismic
assessment of structure in post disaster situations. These research works has been
utilized for restoring the function of infrastructures and estimating the probability of
re-functioning of the structure after being damaged by earthquakes. Further, this tool
has been widely used to study dynamic behavior of the structure at design phase itself
to extract the probability of damages flaws rather than adopting expensive
rehabilitation treatment.
1.2 Need of Research
Looking at the history of earthquake, repeated earthquakes may occur several times
with in even few hours or minutes leaving very limited time between occurrences of
tremors. This may hamper the re-occupancy and restoration activities of structures in
post disaster situations. Many buildings which withstand the main shock have been
collapsed or severely damaged in aftershocks. Even though aftershocks possess
normally smaller magnitude, they may have higher ground motion intensity.
Generally magnitudes of aftershocks are smaller than that of main shock but they may
have higher peak ground acceleration and longer time duration than main shock.
Hence, after a major earthquake, it is important to check whether damaged buildings
14
can continue to be occupied, also keeping threat of aftershocks in consideration. The
existing code provision of seismic design is using single design earthquake in form of
response spectrum or using single sever ground motion for time history analysis of
structure. To date, the concept of using main shock and aftershock event for the
analysis of RC structures have been rarely used in design purposes and has not been
used in codes. Since there are various effects that aftershocks can add, analysis based
on repeated earthquakes is found to be necessary.
1.3 Objectives and Purpose of Study
The objective of the study is Seismic Fragility assessment of RC frame Structures

under main shock-aftershock sequences using Incremental Dynamic especially in
Kathmandu region .The general objectives of this study are listed below
1. To compare the response of the structure when subjected to Series of Main

shock and Back to back Main-shock- Aftershock earthquake sequences.
2. To compare the Residual displacement at the end of Major shock and repeated
earthquake.
3. To measure the Post main-shock Collapse capacity and Post Aftershock

Collapse capacity of the structure.
1.4 Methodology
This section describes the methodology followed to obtain the above-mentioned

objectives which are as follows:
1. Review of existing literatures and seismic design code provisions for

designing buildings are studied.
2. Definition of problem related to effects of sequence earthquake in dynamic
response of structures.
3. Selection of parameters to be considered and fictitious RC framed building for
study.
4. Modeling considered structure in SAP2000.
5. Selection of earthquake ground motions for performing Non-linear dynamic
analysis.
6. Matching selected earthquake ground motions with selected response target
spectrum.
15
7. Perform Incremental dynamic analysis for to develop IDA curves.
8. Identification of drift limits states.
9. Identification of fragility curve parameters.
10. Generation of fragility curve.
11. Analysis of probability of damage in different damage states.
12. Analysis and interpretation of results.
13. Conclusion, discussion and recommendation are made based upon the results.
Figure 1.1: Methodology of study
1.5 Organization of Thesis
This thesis work has been organized in seven different chapters. This introductory
chapter (CHAPTER 1) gives brief introduction about Sequence earthquake,
Seismic vulnerability of Nepal including Kathmandu, PBEE and Fragility analysis.
Need of study, Objectives of research work are defined along with methodology
which is adopted to complete this thesis work.
 Chapter 2: presents the review of provisions in different codes for non-

linear dynamic analysis, response target spectrum for Kathmandu valley
region. This chapter also includes the literature review for PBEE, Effects
16
of seismic sequence earthquake, Incremental dynamic analysis, Fragility
analysis, Residual displacement of structure.
 Chapter 3: contains theoretical background used in this study. This

chapter describes the methods of Performance based earthquake
engineering and in particular it describes about procedures and important
parameters for performing Incremental dynamic analysis. This also
describes the theoretical formulation of fragility assessment of structures.
This chapter further discuss about developing IDA curve and Fragility
curve in detail.
 Chapter 4: contains the description of selected structure, structural

modeling parameters, and details about the structural components.
 Chapter 5: includes details about selected earthquake ground motions.

This chapter describes in brief about the selection, matching and scaling of
ground motion data.
 Chapter 6: presents the results obtained from matching and scaling

ground motion parameters, Non-linear dynamic analysis, Incremental
dynamic analysis and fragility assessment of building models. This chapter
evaluated and compared the dynamic responses and fragility assessments
of structures for single earthquake ground motions and sequence
earthquake ground motions for different types of models.
 Chapter 7: contains the conclusions drawn from the analysis and results
from the study and some of the recommendations for future works.
17
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF CODE PROVISIONS AND LITERATURE
2.1 Overview
This chapter presents a brief summary of the literature and code provisions been
studies for this thesis work. This chapter contains two parts. The first part deals with
the review of literatures whereas the second part briefs about the code provisions.
2.2 Literature Review
Many research papers are reviewed to carry out the research work and to act as
guidance for successful completion of the thesis work. Some of the references used in
this study are discussed below:
2.2.1 Performance Based Earthquake Engineering
Gunay and Mosalam (2012) summarized the PEER PBEE framework in a very simple
way to help practicing engineers to understand the PBEE methodology. The paper
described about PEER PBEE methodology which consists of four successive
analyses: hazard analysis, structural analysis, damage analysis, and loss analysis. The
paper concluded that PEER PBEE methodology proves to be important design tool for
designing conventional structural such as moment resisting frames with unreinforced
masonry infill walls and also for the advanced and sustainable analysis and retrofit
strategies such as base isolation, rocking foundations, and self-centering systems.
Deierlein (2004) developed the robust methodology for performing Performance

Based Earthquake Engineering. The paper clearly described about process of
assessment, defining the intensity measures, simulation process for establishing
engineering demand parameters and damage measures and also defined the
calculation of Decision variables. The paper further stated that robust methodology
can be used as greatest potential for reducing losses in future earthquakes.
2.2.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis
Dimitrios Vamvatsikos (2002) established and defined the basic principles of

Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA). The paper provided the brief knowledge about
Intensity measures (IM), Damage Measures (DM), IDA curves and principles of
Single record IDA and Multi-record IDA. It carried out analysis for different types of
18
structures and developed response-intensity curves. It thoroughly studied those curves
and proposed efficient techniques to perform an incremental dynamic analysis. It
further incremental dynamic analyses are valuable tool that simultaneously addresses
tool that simultaneously address the seismic demand of the structure and their global
capacities.
Cornell (2004) proposed a practical method to perform Incremental dynamic analysis

as the complicated analysis method like IDA requires an intense computational effort.
9-story steel moment-resisting frame is analyzed and studied in detail to show how to
apply it, how to interpret the results, and how to use these results within the
framework of performance-based earthquake engineering.
Dimitrios and Cornell( 2005) performed both Pushover analysis (POA) and IDA on
both Single degree of freedom and multiple degrees of freedom structures and defined
how IDA is associated with conventional POA. It also introduced new software,
SPO2IDA that allows direct estimation of the summarized IDA results. The paper
concluded that as IDA addresses both demand and capacity of structures and can be
used as very important part of PBEE framework in future also.
2.2.3 Approach of Fragility Analysis
Gautham. A( 2016) performed nonlinear static using Capacity Spectrum method on

the structural models using SAP2000 and developed fragility curves to determine
effects of infill wall in spectral displacement. The paper concluded that fragility
curves can be effectively used to identify the effects of irregularities such as the soft
story structures in functioning of structural systems.
Nazri and Saruddin (2015) performed Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) using
SAP2000 software considering seven ground motion records and compared results
with the limit state to develop fragility curve. It concluded that Fragility curve is a
very helpful method in determining the level of probable damage during earthquakes.
Nazri F. M (2018) performed fragility analysis for different story RC structures and
Steel structures. The paper used POA and IDA for developing fragility curves. Both
the Far-field and near- field ground motions data were considered for analysis. (Nazri
F. M (2018) and Yassif & Motsafa (2011) concluded that the fragility analysis can be
19
done to every individual buildings separately, be it pre-earthquake or post-earthquake
conditions and presented the probability of damage of building in different
performance level.
Figure2.1: Methods to develop fragility analysis
2.2.4 Effects of sequence earthquakes on dynamic performance of buildings
Jorge Ruiz (2012) analyzed that in the absence of the real aftershock earthquake data,
randomized approach of generating earthquake data is useful because the artificial
randomized aftershock ground motions should have smaller amplitude than the real
main shock ground motion and also most of them should have shorter predominant
period and concluded that the predominant period of the aftershock significantly
influences the post-main shock response.
Hatzivassiliou and D.Hatzigeorgiou (2015) And Haider, Nizamani, and Yip (2020)
concluded that the roof level displacements under repeated earthquakes are doubled or
even more than during single earthquake. It also found that inter-storey drift ratio also
increases for repeated earthquake. Also, structural members perform elastically under
single ground motions while they behave in elastically during repeated earthquake,
i.e., they are damaged.
20
Oggu and Gopikrishna (2020) carried out vulnerability assessment of three-
dimensional RC building frames (with and without vertical irregularities) designed
based on the Indian Standard codes of practice under bi-directional single and
repeated ground motions. The results concluded in this paper are that repeated
earthquakes considerably reduce the collapse capacity of RC buildings compared to
that of the most severe single earthquake.
2.2.5 Residual Displacement
Kawashima, MacRae, Hoshikuma and Nagaya (2013) performed analysis of many

single degree-of-freedom bilinear oscillators varying natural periods, damping ratios,
ductility factors, bilinear factors, and input ground motions and described how to
estimate the residual displacements of real single-degree-of-freedom structures. The
paper developed residual displacement response spectrum and residual displacement
response ratio spectrum using 63 ground motions to extract residual displacements of
structures subjected to large ground motions.
Iyama (2012) discussed that how the probability distributions of the residual
displacement is affected by ground motion and vibrational system characteristics
when excited by earthquake ground motions. The paper presented the theory
“Random walk” and used it to explain the probability distribution of the residual
displacement in isotropic hardening bilinear SDOF systems. The paper aimed at
developing the method to calculate the residual displacement of a building manifested
during earthquake.
2.2.6 Collapse Capacity
Ibarra and Krawinkler (2004) developed a method to determine global collapse

capacity of structures under earthquake ground motions. The paper used the Sa(T1)g
as the intensity measure for the analysis, where Sa is spectral acceleration at T1, T1 is
fundamental time period and g is acceleration due to gravity. The methodology used
to determine the collapse capacity involved increasing the intensity measure until the
curve in graph of intensity measure versus normalized maximum roof drift curve
becomes flat. Therefore, the collapse capacity is of structure is equal to the relative
intensity measure at which this curve becomes flat.
21
Shafei, Zareian and Lignos (2011) Defined collapse capacity of structural systems as
the spectral acceleration value at which the structure becomes dynamically unstable
due to component strength and stiffness deterioration and/or –Delta effects. The paper
further presented a methodology for estimation of collapse capacity of structural
systems using nonlinear static (pushover) analysis.
Yue Li, Ruiqiang Song and John W. Van De Lindt (2014) adopted various
methodologies to evaluate the collapse fragility of the steel building. The paper
determined the effects of main shocks on the structural collapse capacity and found
that structures are exposed to high intensity main shocks the collapse capacity of
structure reduces significantly. So that after being damaged by main shock the
likeliness of structure to collapse increases even if it is further exposed to aftershocks.
Raghunandan, Liel and Luco (2014) studied the vulnerability of four modern ductile
reinforced concrete (RC) framed buildings in California under the aftershocks using
incremental dynamic analysis. After performing non-linear dynamic analysis, collapse
and damage fragility curves were developed for both intact and damage structures.
And the paper concluded that damage indicators related to the drift experienced by the
damaged building are the most useful to predict the reduced aftershock collapse
capacities for these ductile structures.
2.3 Review of codes
The seismic design codes of buildings of different countries have different provisions
for Non-linear dynamic analysis. Seismic Zoning of Kathmandu region according to
Indian code and Nepal building code is also presented in this section. Some of
national and international codes that had been reviewed are listed below:
a. Nepal- NBC 105: 2020– Structural analysis and design
b. Nepal- NBC 105: 1994 – Spectral factor
c. Indian- IS 1893(Part I): Spectral factor
d. USA- ASCE 7: 2016- Non-linear dynamic analysis
e. Europe- BS EN 19981: 2004- Methods of analysis
22
2.3.1 Nepal National Building Code NBC 105: 2020
Nepal national building code established following relation and figure for Spectral
factor. The spectral factor Ch(T) for relevant soil type shall be obtained from
following Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 or Equation 2.1 .
( )
( ) (2.1)
[ ( )( ) ]( )
{
Where,
= peak spectral acceleration normalized by PGA
Ta and Tc= the lower and upper periods of the flat part of spectrum
K = Coefficient that controls the descending part of spectrum
Table 2.1: Soil parameters
Parameters/ Soil type A Soil type B Soil type C Soil type D

soil type
Ta 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5
Tc 0.5 0.7 1 2
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.25
K 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.8
Figure2.2: Spectral shape factor, Ch(T) for Equivalent Static Method
23
Figure2.3: Spectral Shape factor, Ch(T) for Modal Response Spectrum Method, Non-
Linear Time history analysis, Vertical loading parts and components
2.3.2 Indian Standard IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016
Design spectral acceleration for different soil type, normalized with peak ground
acceleration, corresponding to natural period T of structure is given by IS 1893(part 1)
2016. When structure is not specified, it shall be taken as corresponding to 5%
damping, given by expressions below:
a) For use in equivalent method
⁄ {
{
{
24
b) For use in response spectrum method
{ {
Figure2.4 Design acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) (Corresponding to 5% damping)
25
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FORMULATION
3.1 Performance based earthquake engineering
A Performance Based Earthquake engineering (PBEE) is the methodology that has

been widely used for understanding the seismic performance of structures. Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) has developed the very useful
method to perform PBEE focusing on the probabilistic calculation of structural
performance measures. PEER PBEE methodology consists of four successive
analyses steps: hazard analysis, structural analysis, damage analysis, and loss analysis.
Figure 3.1: Flowchart of PEER PBEE framework
3.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis
Incremental dynamic analysis is the powerful method of PBEE framework. IDA

involves series of nonlinear dynamic analyses under a suite of multiple scaled ground
26
motion records for addressing seismic performance of structural system. Also IDA
offers detailed knowledge in seismic demand and limit-state capacity prediction
capability. Many research works has been done to describe IDA but the one which
gave detail knowledge about IDA is described below
(Dimitrios Vamvatsikos, 2002)

This study provided detail knowledge about the common frame of reference to
perform the IDA. As the IDA is very complicated parametric analysis, the
fundamental concepts and suitable algorithms for performing IDA must be clear.
Carrying out IDA to determine the non-linear behavior of structure involves several
computational steps. At first, a proper nonlinear structural model needs to be modeled
on suitable finite element software then appropriate number of ground motion records
need to be considered for performing non-linear dynamic analysis. Further, selected
ground motion records need to be scaled to different intensity levels and the dynamic
analysis is performed and results are extracted.
3.2.1 IDA Algorithm
Theoretical study of an IDA process is very simple but performing the actual analysis
can be resource intensive. Various algorithms were developed for IDA by various
journals. (Seung-Yul Yun, Hamburger, Cornell, & Foutch, 2002) Gave a simple
stepping algorithm which involved the simple method of increasing the IM by a
constant step from zero until the structure is collapsed. The results obtained after
using this algorithm are uniformly-spaced (in IM) grid of points on the curve. The
algorithm needs only a pre-defined step value and a rule to determine when to stop,
i.e., when a run is collapsing.
Repeat
Increase IM by the step
Scale record, run analysis and extract DM (s)
Until collapse is reached
3.3 Fragility function
Fragility functions are very important tool used to develop the fragility curves and
further to determine the probability of the structure to reach the collapse point or other
27
seismic limit state. Fragility function is a function of some ground motion intensity
measure (IM) which is determined from different approaches such as field
observations of damage, static structural analyses, or judgment.
Many studies have been carried out to determine the Fragility Function, some of
which are presented below:
(Bakera & M.EERI, 2015)

This paper used the statistical procedures to evaluate the fragility functions
parameters using results obtained from performing nonlinear dynamic analysis of
structure. Those procedures were used to evaluate fragility functions by using various
non-linear dynamic analyses. This paper gave lognormal cumulative distribution
function as a fragility function as shown in equation 3.1
( )
( ) ( ) (3.1)
where ( ) is the probability that a ground motion with IM = x will cause

the structure to collapse, Φ( ) is the standard normal cumulative distribution function
(CDF), is the median of the fragility function (the IM level with 50% probability of
collapse) and is the standard deviation of lnIM (sometimes referred to as the
dispersion of IM).
(Gautham. A, 2016)
In this study, performance of structural is characterized by performing pushover
analysis for various limit states defined in ATC 40. Damage state thresholds are
represented on four damage states; Slight, Moderate, Extensive and Complete defined
based on the bi - linear capacity spectra. Based on those thresholds, the Median
Spectral Displacements are calculated for all of four damage states as specified in
Table (3.1).
Table 3.1: Damage threshold spectral displacements
Sd1 =0.7Dy Slight

Sd2 =Dy Moderate
Sd3 =Dy+0.25(Du-Dy) Extensive
Sd4 =Du Complete
28
The median spectral displacement is calculated for the considered damage state and
variability values are determined. Further, developed the conditional probability of
exceedance of damage corresponding to the damage state is defined by equation 3.2
( ) ⌊ ( )⌋ (3.2)
Where,
Sdds = Median value of spectral displacement at which the structure reaches threshold
damage state, ds
Sd = Given peak spectral displacement.
βds = variability of spectral displacement for the damage state, ds.
(Nazri F. M., 2018)

In this study, Fragility curves are established for both near field and far field ground
motion data for steel structure and RC framed structure. Fragility function used in this
study is as shown in equation 3.3
( ) ( ) (3.3)
Where,
(Ø) is the standardize normal distribution,
λ is the mean of ln x,
ξ is the standard deviation of ln x.
3.4 Residual displacement:

Residual displacements are permanent drifts which are manifested in structure at the
end of the analysis. These permanent drifts are developed due to the inelasticity of the
structural members. Residual displacements recorded in post- earthquake condition
can be used as the very important indexes to represent the probability of repairing of
damaged building.
(Iyama, 2012), This study described use of the hypothesis of random walk to perform
the theoretical probability distribution for distribution of residual displacements. The
hypothesis of a random walk states that at each occurrence of yielding (walk) the
plastic deformation is constant. The paper further described, the plastic deformation at
29
i-th occurrence of yielding is represented as di. The residual displacement dr and the
cumulative plastic displacement dt are represented as,
∑| |
The normalized values of the plastic deformation at each occurrence of yielding, di ,

and the residual displacement, dr , are defined as,
̅̅̅
The figure below shows a conceptual diagram of time histories of the residual
displacement and the cumulative plastic displacement.
Figure3.2: Example of response analysis result
3.4.1 “Random walk” hypothesis with constant plastic displacement
In this approach, study is carried out by assuming that the behavior of the time history
of the residual displacement is a “random walk”, which means that the magnitude of
every single plastic displacement is constant and its direction is completely random.
Therefore, the normalized plastic deformation at the i-th occurrence of yielding, di ,
30
should be either +1/n or −1/ n , each with a 1/2 probability of occurring, where n
represents the number of occurrences of yielding during an earthquake. This means
that the probability distribution of the post-earthquake residual displacement, dr , is a
binomial distribution with a standard deviation of 1/√n .
Figure3.3: Random walk hypothesis with constant plastic displacement

3.4.2 “Random walk” hypothesis with constant energy input
In this section, the plastic energy input is same at each occurrence of yielding instead
of the magnitude of the plastic displacement. This assumption is clearly shown in fig
below:
Figure3.4: Assumed behavior during a single plastic deformation
Using this hypothesis, extracting the exact closed-form formula for estimating the
standard deviation of the residual displacement is very hard and complicated.
However, by using Monte Carlo simulation, the probability distribution and its
standard deviation can be calculated numerically using the procedure shown in Figure
3.8.
31
Figure3.5: Procedure to compute the residual displacement under the hypothesis of
constant energy input
3.5 Collapse Capacity
The collapse capacity of structural systems is defined as the spectral acceleration

value at which the structure becomes dynamically unstable due to component strength
and stiffness deterioration and/or –Delta effects. It is very crucial to determine
collapse capacity of structures after being hit by strong ground motions. This helps to
determine life safety and re-occupancy of structures during seismic hazards. There are
various analysis methods to determine collapse capacity of structures and some of
them are described below.
3.5.1 Non-Linear static procedure:
Non-linear static procedure which is also known as push over analysis is one of the
popular tool used to determine the probable damage and safety of structures during
seismic hazard like earthquake. This method involves analyzing the structure
considering the nonlinear force deformation behavior of its elements .The structure is
subjected to monotonically increasing lateral force until the displacement of a control
node exceeds a target displacement or the structure collapses and the force
displacement relation is established. A global collapse of structure is supposed to be
reached when the slope in the base shear-lateral displacement curve becomes negative
due to P-Δ effects and reaches afterward a point of zero base shears.
3.5.2 Incremental dynamic analysis
Determining the collapse capacity by using incremental dynamic analysis, involves

performing a series of nonlinear dynamic analyses. The intensity of the ground
motion is incrementally increased to different intensity levels until the global collapse
capacity of the structure is reached. The result of process is presented by plotting a
32
measure of the ground motion intensity e.g., peak ground acceleration against a
response parameter (demand measure) such as peak story drift ratio. The structure is
supposed to reach its global collapse when the curve in that plot becomes flat which
means that even a small increase in the ground motion intensity generates a large
increase in the structural response.
3.6 Method of analysis
After studying all procedures and formulas given by many researches to perform IDA,
fragility analysis, residual displacement and collapse capacity, this section
demonstrates the analysis procedures and formulas used in this research work.
3.6.1 Method of analysis
Analysis of structures is carried out to determine and study the responses of structures.
Various analysis methods are linear static analysis, nonlinear static analysis, linear
dynamic analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis. Among the different analysis
methods, nonlinear static analysis is of much importance and discussed more in detail
in following sections than others.
a) Linear static analysis: Linear static analysis which is also known as equivalent
static method is the simplest of all which is based on provisions provided in code of
practice. Design base shear is computed for the whole building and then distributed
along the height of the building. The lateral forces at each floor levels thus obtained
are distributed to individual lateral load resisting elements based on floor diaphragm
action.
b) Linear dynamic analysis: Linear dynamic analysis which is also called Response
spectrum analysis is the method in which structures are subjected to transient dynamic
loading to measure response of structure. It considered contribution of each mode of
vibration to evaluate maximum response based upon SRSS (Square Root of Sum of
Squares) or CQC (Complete Quadratic Combination) method. This provides an
insight into dynamic behavior by measuring pseudo spectral acceleration,
displacements, velocity as a function of structural period for a given time history and
level of damping.
c) Non-linear static analysis: This method is also called Push over analysis which
holds relation between applied forces and displacements. It evaluates the expected
33
performance of a structural system by estimating its strength and deformation
demands in design earthquakes by means of a static inelastic analysis, and comparing
these demands to available capacities. The analysis is carried out up to failure of the
structure and therefore it helps to determine the collapse load and the ductility
capacity of the structure. This can be used to obtain the performance point which can
be used in retrofitting works as well.
d) Non-Linear dynamic analysis: In Non-Linear dynamic analysis or Non-linear time

history analysis, structures are subjected to ground motion record that represents the
expected earthquake at the base of structure. It is the most complex method of
analysis and attempts to completely represent the seismic response of the structures.
This method is the only universally appropriate method for verifying the performance
of structure especially when the responses of structure are non-linear. Selection of
appropriate ground motion records is very crucial to perform this analysis. Time
history analysis is a computational analysis which determines the seismic response of
a structure under dynamic loading of representative earthquake.
3.6.2 Force-Displacement Relationships
The force-displacement relationship of frame elements in non-linear static analysis is

often represented by that of the plastic hinges assigned to desired location of frame
elements. Since it is likely that yielding will occur at the ends of members which are
subjected to lateral load, plastic hinges are assigned to those locations. FEMA-356
defines force-displacement criteria for hinges used in non-linear analysis which is
shown in figure 3.3.
Figure3.6: Component of force displacement curve
34
3.6.3 Incremental Dynamic Analysis
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) is a parametric analysis method used to

estimate structural performance in more detail under seismic loads. IDA is the
computational analysis which involves performing multiple dynamic analyses of
structural model under suit of ground motion records each scaled to several levels of
seismic intensity. The scaling levels are selected accordingly to understand responses
of the structure through the entire range of behavior, from elastic to inelastic and
finally to global dynamic instability. To carry out the IDA, structure are subjected to
one (or more) ground motion record(s), each scaled to multiple levels of intensity,
which gives one (or more) curve(s) of response parameters versus intensity level.
Importance of IDA
 Gives the detail knowledge about intensity measure, response parameters and
relationship between them.
 Determining the performance of structure when subjected to ground motions

of different intensity.
 Estimating the collapse capacity of structure in post-disaster situation.
3.6.4 IDA in SAP2000
SAP 2000, a finite element based structural program is widely used for all types of
analysis whether its linear static or non-linear dynamic that allows quick and better
implementation of NLTH analysis procedures prescribed in ATC-40 and FEMA-273
documents. IDA involves multiple NLTH of structural model under multiple ground
motions scaled to several levels. The following steps are carried out to perform
incremental dynamic analysis:
1. At first three dimensional models of the structure needs to be modeled for

carrying out the analysis. The RC building is modeled by drawing the
structural element with the geometry, joint restraints, material properties and
providing loads over the members.
2. The linear seismic analysis is performed for preliminary design.
3. Geometric non-linearity in the form of p-delta effect can be considered in the
analysis. Material non-linearity of frame element is represented by hinges and
35
hinges can be assigned at discrete locations where mechanism is expected.
Hinges can be auto hinges or user defined hinges and SAP converts them to
generated hinges.
4. Appropriate ground motions; one or more (usually more) data shall be selected.
Where the required number of recorded ground motions is not available,
appropriate simulated ground motions shall be used to make up the total
number required.
5. The selected ground motions needs to be scaled to match the target spectrum.
The scale factor is computed so that it lies between periods Tn and √RµxT1,
where T1 is the fundamental period of vibration of the structure, Tn is the
period of the highest vibration mode to ensure 90% mass participation and Rµ
is the ULS ductility factor.
6. The scaled ground motion/s is applied to the supports of the structural model.
7. After performing NLTH then the analysis is continued with different scaled
factor for IDA until the target state of structure meets.
3.6.5 Fragility Analysis
Fragility analysis is one of Probabilistic approach which correlates demand and

capacity of structure. It is the probabilistic characterization of the demands of
structure with respect to certain seismic limit states. Fragility Curves emerging tool
which are widely being used to evaluate damage and loss during earthquakes. It is
used to predict if the damage caused during earthquakes meets or exceeds a certain
performance level under a given set of ground motion parameters. Also, the fragility
analysis can be carried out in both pre and post-earthquake situations. The results
obtained from fragility analysis are presented in form of fragility curves. These curves
are unique because every building has specific fragility analysis.
Fragility curves are used to determine the probability of reaching or exceeding a

specific damage state under earthquake excitation. The general equation to develop
fragility or conditional probability is expressed by equation 3.4.
⌊ ⌋ (3.4)
Where, LS is the limit state or damage state (DS), IM is the intensity measure
(ground motion), and Y is the realized condition of ground motion IM.
36
The fragility curves are being used as the very important indicator to find out the
probable damage during the earthquakes. These curves also help to perform the
seismic risk assessment of structures. So, the fragility function can be used to reduce
probability of damage, economic loss from damage and loss of life during
earthquakes. Therefore, fragility curves can be used in both pre- and post-earthquake
situations as an important decision-making tool.
3.7 Formulation used in this study
The following procedures and formulation are used in this study:
Incremental dynamic analysis is performed according to procedures presented in

(Dimitrios Vamvatsikos, 2002). For this study, Peak ground acceleration is chosen for
Intensity Measure (IM) and Inter-story drift ratio percentage is chosen for Damage
Measure (DM) to develop IDA curve.
Fragility curve is developed according to (Nazri F. M., 2018) and fragility function is
calculated using equation 3.5
( ) ( ) (3.5)
Where,
(Ø) is the standardize normal distribution,
λ is the mean of ln x,
ξ is the standard deviation of ln x.
37
CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY OF BUILDINGS
To describe the real geometry of structure, the model is extended in the direction of
all three axes. 3D modeling of structure can be done by discretizing it as an
assemblage of beam and column element interconnected at nodes. For this research
work, Finite element analysis software SAP2000 v21.2 “Integrated software for
structural analysis & design” is used for both linear elastic analysis and design and for
non-linear dynamic analysis. Three types of buildings (low rise-4 storey, midrise-7
storey, high rise- 10 storey) are considered for this study.
4.1 Assumptions of study
To reduce complexity in analysis and computation different assumptions are made

without much variation in result of modal and real structure. Assumptions made in
this study are as follows.
a) Foundation: Foundation is assumed to be rigid i.e Soil structure interaction is

not considered in this study.
b) Participating elements: Primary elements of structure like beam, column and
slab are modeled. Effect of secondary and non-structural components like
staircase, partition wall etc. are assumed to be negligible.
c) Infill wall: Only the mass of infill wall is considered and applied in
corresponding beam as uniform distributed load. Stiffness of infill wall that
might contribute to the stiffness of lateral load resisting system is not
considered.
d) Diaphragm: The diaphragm is assumed to be rigid. Rigid diaphragm m forces
constrained joints to move together as a rigid planar diaphragm.
e) Secondary effects such as temperature, creep, shrinkage etc. are not
considered to simplify the analysis process.
4.2. Limitation of study
As the field of research is always vast, to limit the study and focus on specific
problem, this study has following limitations:
a) Numbers of ground motions selected are limited to seven ground motions.

b) Structures are designed and analyzed for the Kathmandu region only.
38
c) Effect of variation in number of bays, bay length and storey height on seismic
performance is not studied.
4.3 Building Nomenclature
In this study, buildings with equal bay in both directions are considered and only
number of storey of structure is varied in different buildings. Building comprises three
bays of 5 m each in both horizontal directions with a story height of 3.2 m. However
variation in number of bay and size of bay is not considered. Low rise, Midrise and
High rise buildings with corresponding number of story 4,7,10 are modeled. Typical
elevation and 3D model of three different structures in shown in Figure 4.1 to Figure
4.6.
Figure4.1: 3D of low rise building Figure4.2: 2D of low rise building
Figure4.3: 3D of Midrise building Figure4.4: 2D of Midrise building
39
Figure4.5: 3D of High rise building Figure4.6: 2D of High rise building
4.4 Materials and Section
The concrete grade used is M25 with an elastic modulus equal to 25000 MPa. The
concrete weight per unit volume is assumed to be 25,000 N/mm2 with poisson‟s ratio
of 0.2. Reinforcement grade HYSD415 TMT with elastic modulus of 200000 MPa is
used in the design process. Its unit weight is taken to be 76900 N/m2 and poisson‟s
ratio is fixed to be 0.3.
Column has square section and beams are designed as rectangular section and varied
for different floor: For First Floor (250mm*450mm), For floors between first and last
floor (250mm*400mm) and For last floor (250mm*300mm).Size of column varied
for different buildings and details are given in table below:
Table 4.1: Column detail for low rise building
Type of Building First Floor Second and third Last Floor

Floor
Low rise building 450mm*450mm 450mm*450mm 450mm*450mm
40
Table 4.2: Column detail for midrise building
Type of Building First Floor Second to fourth Fifth to Seventh

Floor Floor
Mid rise building 508mm*508mm 508mm*508mm 508mm*508mm
Table 4.3: Column detail for high rise building
Type of Building First Floor Second to fourth Fifth to Seventh

Floor Floor
Highrise building 520mm*520mm 520mm*520mm 520mm*520mm
The reduced or effective moment of inertia (Ieff) of the sections for beams Ieff =
0.35Igross and for columns Ieff = 0.70Igross, where Igross is the gross moment of
inertia are taken as stated in NBC: 105:2020. Slab is designed as area section of
thickness of 127mm.
The non-linearity of beams and columns are represented by developing plastic hinges
i.e., beams (M3 hinges) and columns (P-M2-M3 hinges) using default hinges in
SAP2000 at their ends. The Takeda hysteresis model is used to define the degradation
caused by cyclic loading.
4.5 Loads
Loads are action applied to the structure. Following loads are considered for analysis
and calculation.
1. Dead load
2. Dead load of 3.75 Kn/m2 on slab( inclusive of floor finish)
3. Lateral load
4. Live load of 3 Kn/m2
5. Wall load as uniformly distributed load on beams. Assuming unit weight of
brick wall as 19.2kN/m2 ,
Wall load for external wall of thickness 230mm
= 1*19.2*0.23*(3.2) =14.13 Kn/m (Deduction of Beam depth has been neglected

for simplicity)
41
4.5.1 Seismic Weight
The total seismic weight of the structure, W, shall be taken as the sum of the dead
loads and factored seismic live loads, i.e. W= DL + λ LL
Where, W is the total seismic weight of the structure,
DL is the total dead load of the structure which includes the self-weight of the
structural elements, floor finish and wall loads
LL is the live load and λ is the live load participation factor. It is taken as 0.30 in this
study
4.5.2 Load combination
For the design of structure, the seismic load effect is combined with other effects. The
following load combination is adopted to design the structure.
1.2DL + 1.5LL
DL + λLL ± E
Where, λ = 0.3 is taken for this study.
42
CHAPTER 5: SELECTION OF GROUND MOTION DATA
Selection of ground motion data is very important step in IDA. All real earthquake
data are chosen for study and no artificial data are generated for both main shock and
after shock ground motions. In this study, mainshock and aftershock of earthquakes
having moment magnitude greater than 5.5 and lesser than 8.0 are considered. The
After Shock data for the Chosen earthquakes are taken for the same station as that of
Main shock. Only the Horizontal components of earthquake data for both main shock
and after shock are taken for the study. The Earthquake record data are downloaded
from Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center and Consortium of
Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) database.
5.1 Selection of ground motion data
For correct evaluation of responses of structure to dynamic loading, it is very crucial

to consider adequate number of ground motion data. According to NBC 105:2020 , If
less than 7 numbers of ground motion records are considered for analysis, maximum
values of the response quantities from these ground motions shall be used. If the
number of ground motions used is more than 7, then average values of the considered
number of ground motions shall be used for evaluation of response quantities. Also
according to the ASCE/SEI-7, if at least seven ground motions are analyzed, the
design values of engineering demand parameters (EDPs) are taken as the average of
the EDPs determined from the analyses. So, Seven Real earthquake ground motions
are taken for this study.
The table below shows seven main-shock and corresponding aftershock data. For this
study, earthquake data of only one orthogonal direction is applied to structure. No
artificial earthquakes have been generated for this study.
Table 5.1: List of earthquake ground motions
SN Earthquak Station Date Magnitud Source Denotation

e e
1 Irpinia Italy Auletta 11/23/1980 6.90 PEER Irp-1
Irpinia Italy Auletta 11/23/1980 6.20 PEER Irp-2
2 Northridge Anaverde 01/17/1994 6.69 PEER Nor-1
valley
Northridge Anaverde 01/17/1994 6.05 PEER Nor-2
43
valley
3 Gorkha KATNP 25/04/2015 7.80 COSM Gkh-1
OS
Gorkha KATNP 12/05/2015 7.30 COSM Gkh-2
OS
4 India- Berlongfe 08-06-1988 7.20 COSM Inb-1
Burma r OS
border
India- Berlongfe 01-09-1990 6.10 COSM Inb-2
Burma r OS
border
5 Friuli Tolmezzo 05-06-1976 6.50 PEER Fri-1
Friuli Tolmezzo 05-07-1976 5.20 PEER Fri-2
6 Hollister Hollister 04-09-1961 5.60 PEER Hol-1
city hall
Hollister Hollister 04-09-1961 5.50 PEER Hol-2
city hall
7 Livermore APEEL 01-24-1980 5.80 PEER Liv-1
3E
Hayward
CSUH
Livermore APEEL 01-27-1980 5.42 PEER Liv-2
3E
Hayward
CSUH
5.2 Matching and Combining ground motion data
The selected ground motion records taken from data centers should be scaled to match
certain target response spectrum of specified location to meet the specified level of
seismic hazard as per site location. In this study the target spectrum is response
spectrum provided in NBC: 105: 2020. Seismomatch software version 2020 is used
for matching and scaling of above selected ground motion data. Selected ground
motion records are scaled up or scaled down to match with the target response
spectrum provided in NBC: 105:2020 for Kathmandu area using appropriate scale
factor. The scaled factor used to match the target spectrum are calculated so that it
lied between periods Tn and √RµxT1, where T1 is the fundamental period of
vibration of the structure, Tn is the period of the highest vibration mode to ensure
90% mass participation and Rµ is the ULS ductility factor as stated in NBC:105: 2020.
44
Description of seismic hazard of location as per NBC: 105: 2020
Seismic Zone factor = 0.35

Soil type= Very soft soil
Importance class of building = 'I'
Structural importance factor = 1
10
9 Target
spectrum
8 Friuli
7
Gorkha
Acceleration(g)
6
Hollister
5
Indiaburm
4
a
3 Livermore
2 Northridg
e
1 Mean
0 spectrum
0 2 4 6 8
Time(s)
Figure5.1: Unmatched response spectrum of Main shock ground motions
3
Target
2.5 spectrum
Friuli
2 Gorkha
Acceleration(g)
Hollister
1.5
Indiaburma
1
Livermore
0.5 Northridge
Mean
0 spectrum
0 2 4 6 8
Time(s)
Figure5.2 Matched response spectrum of combined ground motions
45
The matched data of main-shock and aftershock are combined together by keeping a
time interval of 100 seconds in between two ground motions. This gap has zero
acceleration ordinates and is absolutely enough to cease the moving of any structure
due to damping (Liolios, 2010). Thus sequential earthquake is formed which is used
for the nonlinear time history analysis. The accelerograms of seven sequential
earthquakes generated (i.e. Irp, Nor, Gkh, Hol, Inb , Fri, Liv ) from their
corresponding single accelerograms ( Irp1 and Irp2, Nor1 and Nor2, Gkh1 and Gkh2,
Hol1 and Hol2, Inb1 and Inb2, Fri1 and Fri2, Liv1 and Liv2) are shown in Figure5.3
to Figure 5.9.
1.5
1
Acceleration(g)
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Time(s)
Figure5.3: Sequential earthquake (Friuli)
0.5
Acceleration(g)
-0.5
-1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Time(s)
Figure5.4: Sequential earthquake (Gorkha)
46
1.5
1
Acceleration(g)
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Time(s)
Figure5.5: Sequential earthquake (Hollister)
1.5
1
Acceleration(g)
0.5
-0.5
-1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Time(s)
Figure5.6: Sequential earthquake (Indiaburma)
2
1.5
1
Acceleration(g)
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time(s)
Figure5.7: Sequential earthquake (Irpinia)
47
1.5
1
Acceleration(g) 0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time(s)
Figure5.8: Sequential earthquake (Livermore)
1.5
0.5
Acceleration(g)
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time(s)
Figure5.9: Sequential earthquake (Northridge)
48
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Moment-resisting RC building frame (OMRF) consisting (Low rise- 4 story, Midrise-

7 story, High rise- 10 story) situated in Kathmandu City are considered in this study.
The structure is designed by equivalent static method and all members are checked to
see if they are capable of resisting the applied loads. Non-linearity of beams and
columns were modeled with lumped plasticity at their ends. The Takeda hysteresis
model is used to define degradation under cyclic loading in the SAP2000 software, as
shown in Figure 6.1.
Figure6.1: Takeda hysteresis model

For non-linear dynamic analysis, a nonlinear gravity case is defined as the initial case
which includes the total dead load plus 30% live load. The Time history load case is
applied at the end of non-linear gravity case. Further, in this present study, the Peak
Ground Acceleration (PGA) is chosen as the IM, and the maximum inter-story drift
ratio (IDR) is chosen as the EDP. For time integration method, Newmark-beta method
is used and for considering geometric non-linearity effects in the models, P-delata
effects are also taken into account. In order to carryout IDA, each earthquake ground
motion data has been scaled down or scaled up to targeted designed peak ground
acceleration. For this study, ground motion data are scaled to target PGA at the
interval of 0.05g until the collapse state is reached. In the IDA approach, the
engineering demand parameter (EDP), i.e., IDR is monitored as a 3% threshold was
adopted to designate the collapse state of the structure as stated in (Xue, Wu, Chen, &
Chen, 2007).
49
The seismic behavior of the building is monitored and expressed in terms of following
parameters:
6.1 Maximum Lateral Storey Displacement
Studying drift limits are the most common method to study the response of structures.
So, maximum lateral storey displacement is chosen as one of the parameter to present
the results of this study. In order to study the effect of sequence earthquakes, the
maximum lateral story displacements are computed for all three structural models
under all single and combined earthquake data. The comparison of results at a
particular intensity measure is shown in Figure 6.2, Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4.
4 4
3 3
Number of Storey
Number of storey
Fri1- Gkh1-
2 2020 2 2020
Gkh-
Fri-2020 1 2020
1
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement(m) Displacement(m)
(a) (b)
4 4
3 3
Number of storey
Irp1- Liv1-
Number of storey
2 2020 2020
2
1 Irp- Liv-
1
2020 2020
0
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
(c) (d)
50
4 4
3 3
Number of storey
Number of storey
Nor1- Hol1-
2 2020 2020
2
Nor- Hol-
1 1
2020 2020
0
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
(e) (f)
3
Number of storey
Inb1-
2 2020
1 Inb-
2020
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Displacement(m)
(g)

shock for low rise structure
7 7
6 6
5 5
Number of storey
Number of storey
4 4 Go1-
Fri1-
2020
3 2020 3
2 Fri- 2 Gor-
2020 2020
1 1
0 0
0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(a) (b)
51
7 7
6 6
5
Number of storey 5
Liv1-
Number of storey
4 Irp1- 4
2020 2020
3 3
2 Irp- 2 Liv-
2020 2020
1 1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(c) (d)
7 7
6 6
5 5
Number of storey
Number of storey
4 Hol1- 4 Nor1-
2020 2020
3 3
2 Hol- Nor-
2
2020 2020
1 1
0 0
0 0.080.160.240.32 0.4 0.48 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(e) (f)
5
Number of storey
4 Inb1-
2020
3
Inb-2020
2
0
0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.4
Displacement(m)
(g)
shock for midrise structure
52
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
Number of storey
Number of storey
6 Fri1- 6 Gor1-
202 5 2020
5
0
4 4
Fri-
3 3 Gor-
202
2 2020
2 0
1 1
0 0
0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(a) (b)
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 Irp1 7
Number of storey
Liv1-
Number of storey
6 - 6
202 2020
5 5
0
4 Irp- 4 Liv-
3 202 3 2020
2 0
2
1 1
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(c) (d)
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
Number of storey
Number of storey
6 Nor1- 6
Hol1-
5 2020 5 2020
4 4
3 Nor- 3 Hol-
2020 2020
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(e) (f)
53
10
9
8
7
Number of storey
6 Inb1-
5 2020
4
3 Inb-
2020
2
1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement(m)
(g)

shock for high rise structure
From the Figures6.2, Figure6.3 and Figure6.4, we can clearly observe that Lateral
displacement of building increases significantly in case of sequence earthquakes. The
average increase in roof displacements in the case of seismic sequences was found to
be of the order of 11.58%, 18% and 16% for the low rise, midrise and high rise
configurations respectively. The increment in roof displacement might be because the
building faces reduction in strength, changes in stiffness characteristics when it faces
the major shock. And when it is further exposed sequence earthquakes, building
experiences more damage than during major earthquake. Also, the low rise structure
seems to perform better during sequence earthquake than midrise and high rise
structures. However, as seen in results the mean roof displacements in high rise
structure is less than that of mid-rise structure which may be because of the dispersion
available in ground motions with respect to the period and ductility of structures.
6.2 Maximum Inter-story Drift Ratio (IDR)
Among different parameters, Maximum inter-story drift ratio is chosen for the
Engineering demand parameter for this study. So IDR is used as EDP to develop IDA
curves and later fragility curves. The IDA curves developed here are the outcome of
around 310 simulations of non-linear time history analysis performed on three
different types of structural configurations under 7 single earthquake ground motions
and 7 seismic sequences. These curves are plotted between PGA and maximum inter-
story drift ratios (IDR) as shown in Figures 6.5 and Figure 6.6.
54
0.6
0.5
0.4
PGA(g)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Max Interstory Drift percentage
Hollister Friuli Irpinia Northridge
Livermore India-Burma Gorkha
(a)
0.5
0.4
0.3
PGA(g)
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
(b)
0.5
0.4
0.3
PGA(g)
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
(c)
Figure6.5: IDA curve for Main shock: (a) Low rise (b) Midrise (c) High rise
55
0.4
0.3
0.2
PGA(g)
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Max Interstory Drift percentage (%)
Hollister Friuli Northridge Livermore
India-Burma Gorkha Irpinia
(a)
0.4
0.3
PGA(g)
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Hollister Friuli Irpinia Livermore
India-Burma Gorkha Northridge
(b)
0.5
0.4
PGA(g)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Hollister Friuli Irpinia Livermore
India-Burma Gorkha Northridge
(c)
Figure 6.6: IDA curve for Sequence earthquake: (a) Low rise (b) Midrise (c) High rise
56
6.2.1: Mean IDA Curve
After developing IDA curves, mean IDA curve is generated by taking mean of all the
IDA curves. So, Figure6.7 is developed by taking mean of IDA curves in Figure 6.5
and Figure 6.6 respectively. Mean IDA curve is further used to extract fragility
parameters to perform fragility analysis of structures.
Table 6 .1: Defining limit states
Limit state Drift %
Operational phase(OP) 0.5
Immediate occupancy (IO) 1.0
Damage control (DC) 1.5
Life safety (LS) 2.0
Collapse prevention (CP) 2.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
PGA(g)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Mean Interstory drift percentage(%)
OP IO DC LS CP Main shock Combined Shock
(a)
57
0.5
0.4
0.3
PGA(g) 0.2
0.1
-0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

OP IO DC LS CP Main Shock Combined Shock
(b)
0.5
0.4
0.3
PGA(g)
0.2
0.1
-0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

OP IO DC LS CP Main Shock Combined Shock
(c)
Figure6.7: Comparison of Mean IDA curve of Main shock and Sequence earthquake:
(a) Low rise (b) Midrise (c) High rise
As seen in Figure6.7, it can be observed that when low rise, midrise and high rise
structures are subjected to sequence earthquakes, they reached collapse point at much
lower PGA values i.e,0.25g, 0.23 and 0.3g respectively whereas while subjecting to
only single earthquake, they collapsed at 0.33g,0.36gand 0.38g. After studying these
graphs from Figure6.10, it is evident that buildings reaches collapse limit state (3%
IDR in our study) at lower IM, i.e., at lower PGA value under repeated earthquake
force compared to that of individual earthquake forces. This justifies that when the
building is exposed to further aftershocks after being hit by major shocks within small
time interval, building further lose its capability to bear the seismic force gradually
and reaches the collapse point more sooner.
58
6.3 Plastic Hinge Pattern
The plastic hinge formation in an RC building is an indicator of structural damage

induced when subjected to seismic events. The severity of plastic hinge pattern for the
structural models under seismic forces (Fri1 and Fri, Gkh1 and Gkh , Hol1 and Hol,
Inb1 and Inb) for low rise, midrise and high rise structures at just before reaching
collapse state is expressed in Figure6.8, Figure6.9 and Figure6.10 respectively. The
legends in Figures. 6.8 to 6.10, describes different damage states of plastic hinges (i.e.,
IO: immediate occupancy, LS: life safety, CP: collapse prevention) with appropriate
labels and colors, as per FEMA 356.
(a) Main shock earthquake (Fri) (b) Sequence earthquake (Fri)
(c) Main shock earthquake (Gkh) (d) Sequence earthquake (Gkh)
59
(e) Main shock earthquake (Hol) (f) Sequence earthquake (Hol)
(g) Main shock earthquake (Inb) (h) Sequence earthquake (Inb)
Figure6.8: Comparison of Hinges pattern for different earthquakes for low rise
building
60
61
Figure6.9: Comparison of Hinges pattern for different earthquakes for Midrise

building
62
63
Figure6.10: Comparison of Hinges pattern for different earthquakes for High rise
building
In all building configurations, it can be observed that structural components reached
the more Sevier plastic state when subjected to repeated earthquakes than that in case
of individual earthquakes. For example, taking the case for Gorkha earthquake for all
64
three types of buildings (from Figure 6.8: (d), Figure 6.9: (d) and Figure 6.10: (d)),
more numbers of structural members reached the collapse state when structure is
subjected to sequence earthquake than the single earthquake. This might be because
of decrease in strength and reduction in stiffness properties of structural components
while building is exposed to aftershocks after major shock.
6.4 Residual Displacement
Residual displacements are manifested in the structural response when the structure
remains in the plastic state after the Main shock and is an indicator of permanent
damage caused to the structure. After first earthquake if the structure is exposed to
repeated events within a short duration, this damage get more accumulated. As there
is short interval of the time span between the sequential events the rehabilitation
measures become impractical which further leads to a substantial increase in
structural damages. Plot of residual displacement for seismic sequence events (Nor,
Gkh, Irp, Inb) are developed for the case of NBC: 105:2020 only and are presented in
Figure 6.11, Figure 6.12 and Figure 6.13.
(a) Sequence earthquake (Nor) (b) Sequence earthquake (Gkh)
65
(c) Sequence earthquake (Irp) (d) Sequence earthquake (Inb)
Figure6.11: Residual Displacement after different sequence earthquakes for low rise
building

building
66

building
As seen in above figures, residual displacement resulted after first earthquake is
further accumulated and increased when structure is continuously hit by aftershocks.
As seen in Figure 6.11: (b), when building is subjected to single main shock of
Gorkha earthquake, the residual displacement at the end of quake is approximately
0.015m and it is clearly seen that after experiencing further shock this displacement is
accumulated and increased to 0.08m at the end of sequence earthquake. Similarly, in
Figure 6.12: (c), the residual displacement manifested in midrise structure after the
single major shock of Irpinia earthquake is -0.010m (displaced in opposite direction).
This displacement is further accumulated to 0.04m at the end of sequence earthquake.
Also, the structure experienced higher displacement when it is subjected to another
shock after main shock. The further increment in accumulation of residual
67
displacement evident the weakness of building as the accumulation of plastic
deformation is not the good sign for structure.
6.5 Results from Fragility Analysis
From the generated IDA curves, the fragility parameters (viz., the mean „μ‟ and
standard deviation „σ‟ values) are evaluated as per ATC 40 guidelines for collapse
limit state. These parameters are evaluated from mean IDA curves presented in Figure
6.7 and are listed in Table 6.2 , Table 6.3 and Table 6.4.
In case of NBC: 105: 2020

Table 6.2: For low rise building
Type of OP IO DC LS CP
earthquake μ σ μ σ μ σ μ σ μ σ
Main shock -3.168 0.009 -2.136 0.016 -1.639 0.028 -1.309 0.04 -1.061 0.053
Combined
-3.103 0.003 -2.295 0.003 -1.854 0.005 -1.549 0.008 -1.316 0.011
Shock
Table 6.3: For midrise building
Main shock -3.507 0.007 -2.379 0.019 -1.862 0.033 -1.553 0.043 -1.27 0.061
Combined -
Shock -3.583 0.011 -2.656 0.019 -2.183 0.029 -1.864 0.038 1.622 0.048
Table 6.4: For High building
- - - -
Main shock -2.705 0.0246 2.043 0.031 1.648 0.04 1.366 0.0508 1.146 0.062
Combined - - - -
Shock -2.856 0.0215 2.205 0.0298 1.814 0.039 1.533 0.049 1.315 0.059
These parameters are further used to compute the probability of exceedance using a
spreadsheet program as per Eq. (6.5.1):
( )
( ) ( ) (6.5.1)
68
6.5.1 Generation of Fragility curve
Figure6.14: Steps to develop fragility curve
6.5.2: Development of fragility curve
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Probability
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
PGA(g)
OP-MS IO-MS DC-MS LS-MS
CP-MS OP-combined IO-combined DC-combined
LS-combined CP-combined
(a)
69
1.00
0.80
Probability
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PGA(g)
(b)
1.00
0.80
0.60
Probability
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
PGA(g)
(c)
Figure6.15: Comparison of Fragility curves for single and combined ground motions:
(a) Low rise (b) Midrise (c) High rise
As seen in Figure 6.15 : (a), when the PGA is 0.2g, the OP level and IO level for low
rise structure has probability of 100% under both single and sequence earthquake. At
the CP level, the probability is 0% for both earthquake cases. However, when the
PGA is 0.3g, the probability of reaching and exceeding CP level is 100% under
combined earthquake where as it is 0% under single earthquake. Also from Figure
6.15: (b), when the PGA is 0.1g, both OP level and IO level for midrise structure has
probability of 100% and for CP level is 0% under both single and sequence
earthquake case. But at 0.2g PGA, the probability for CP level reached approximately
60% under sequence earthquake whereas probability was still 0% under single
earthquake. Similarly, For high rise structure, from Figure 6.15: (c), it is clear that OP
level reaches probability of 100% at 0.1g PGA and the probability of CP level is 0%
70
under both earthquake cases. Further, at 0.3g, the probability of reaching CP level is
approximately 15% under single earthquake and 90% under sequence earthquake.
The increase in probability of structure to reach sever seismic state at lower PGA
during sequence earthquake again justifies that the occurrence of aftershocks
considerably reduces the strength of structure to resist the damage and collapse.
6.6 Collapse Capacity
Determining collapse capacity of structure is very crucial for determining seismic

capacity of structure. For this study, collapse capacity is estimated by developing
seismic fragility curves. Fragility curves for different limit states are studied
separately from Figures 6.16 to Figure 6.18.
6.6.1Comparison of fragility curves for different limit states
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
0.70 Shift in Shift in
0.70
Probability
probability of probability of
0.60 0.60
Probability
operational immidiate
0.50 phase 0.50
occupancy
0.40 0.40
state
0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Mainshock Mainshock PGA(g)
PGA(g)
Combined Combined
(a) (b)
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
Shift in
0.70 0.70 Shift in
probability of
0.60 damage 0.60 probability
Probability
Probability
0.50 control 0.50 of life

0.40 0.40 safety
0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Mainshock Mainshock
PGA(g) PGA(g)
Combined Combined
(c) (d)
71
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
Probability
0.60 Shift in
0.50 probability
0.40 of collapse
0.30 prevention.
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Combined
Mainshock PGA(g)
(e)
Figure6.16: Comparison of fragility curves for low rise structure for different limit
state: (a) OP (b) IO (c) DC (d) LS (e) CP
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 Shift in 0.80
0.70 Shift in probability
probability of 0.70
of immidiate
Probability
Probability
0.60 operational 0.60 occupancy state

0.50 phase 0.50
0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.3 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.3
Mainshock Mainshock
Combined PGA(g) Combined PGA(g)
(a) (b)
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
0.70 Shift in 0.70
probability Shift in
0.60 of damage 0.60
Probability
probability
Probability
0.50 control 0.50 of life

0.40 0.40 safety
0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.3 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.3
Mainshock Mainshock
Combined PGA(g) Combined PGA(g)
(c) (d)
72
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70 Shift in
probability
Probability
0.60
of collapse
0.50 prevention
0.40 .
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.3
Mainshock
Combined PGA(g)
(e)
Figure6.17: Comparison of fragility curves for midrise structure for different limit
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
Shift in
0.70 Shift in 0.70 probability of
0.60 probability of 0.60 Immidiate
Probability
operational Ocupancy phase

Probability
0.50 0.50
phase
0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Mainshock Mainshock
Combined shock PGA(g) Combined shock PGA(g)
(a) (b)
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80 Shift in
0.70 Shift in probabil
probability of 0.70
Probability
ity of
Probability
0.60 damage 0.60 Life

0.50 control 0.50 safety
0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Mainshock Mainshock
Combined shock PGA(g) PGA(g)
Combined shock
(c) (d)
73
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70 Shift in
Probability
0.60 probability
of collapse
0.50
prevention
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Mainshock
Combined shock
PGA(g)
(e)
Figure6.18: Comparison of fragility curves for high rise structure for different limit
It can be observed from figure 6.16 (e) that low rise building reached initial
probability of collapse at 0.3g when subjected to main shock only but this state is
achieved at 0.25g PGA in case of sequence earthquake .Also, 100 percentage
probability of collapse of structure due to main shock occurs at 0.4 PGA and in case
of sequence earthquake 100 percent collapse condition achieved at 0.3g PGA.
For midrise buildings, figure 6.17 (e) presents that when structure is subjected to
single main shock only, it meets initial collapse state at 0.2g PGA and when it is
subjected to sequence earthquake, initial collapse starts at 0.15g PGA. Further,
structure meets 100 percent collapse probability at 0.35 PGA during individual
earthquake but in case of sequence earthquake, the case is achieved at 0.25 PGA.
Similarly, It can be observed from fig 6.18 (e) that high rise structure meets initial
collapse state at 0.25 PGA during single earthquake but when it experiences main
shock- after shock sequence it reaches initial collapse state at 0.2 PGA. And the 100
percentage collapse of structure occurs at 0.4 PGA and 0.32 PGA for single shock and
sequence earthquake respectively.
The shift in probability of collapse prevention curves signifies the reduction in

collapse capacity of structure when the structure get shook by aftershocks. The
reduction in collapse capacity may be due to degradation of stiffness and strength
characteristics of structural members during repeated earthquake.
74
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1: Conclusion
This study was mainly focused on seismic fragility assessment of structures with
different number of storey in Kathmandu area of Nepal conformed to NBC 105:2020
under single earthquake and sequence earthquakes. In this investigation, IDA is
performed for both single and repeated ground motions to investigate structural
performance in terms of residual displacement with respect to repeated ground
motions, inter-storey drift ratio (IDR) with respect to PGA and the probability of
collapse in terms of PGA. Some of the major conclusions drawn from this sturdy are
listed below:
 Maximum lateral roof displacement increases significantly when buildings are

subjected to continuous repeated earthquake than during single major
earthquake. This means that performance of structure is poor during the
repeated earthquake as it experiences more damages when exposed to repeated
earthquakes.
 Residual displacement accumulated in structure after the major shock found
increased when the structure got hit by repeated earthquakes. This
accumulation of residual displacement shows the vulnerability of structures
while experiencing sequence earthquake. So analyzing structures considering
repeated earthquake is found to be necessary.
 Fragility of structure is found to be more while experiencing repeated
earthquake as the buildings tends to reach more severe seismic level at lower
PGA during repeated earthquake than during single earthquake only.
 Also the influence of repeated earthquakes is found to be significant in
collapse capacity of structure. Probability of collapse of structure became high
in lower PGA in case of repeated earthquake than in single earthquake. This
shows the considerable reduction in the capacity of the buildings while facing
a second or subsequent earthquake after getting damaged by the first one.
Hence, These all conclusions pronounces the weakness of most of the existing and
new buildings designed as per the seismic provisions considering only one isolated
earthquake force during design phase. Hence, this study accentuates the necessity of
75
considering repeated earthquake forces to analyze and design the structure to make it
seismic resilient.
7.2: Recommendations for future work
1. This study considers only one aftershock after main shock. The study can be
carried by considering more aftershocks for same earthquake.
2. The study is focused on the structure of Kathmandu zone only. So the analysis
and study can be done for other seismic zone of Nepal.
3. For this study, PGA is used as intensity measures. So the study can be carried
out by choosing other intensity measures like Spectral accelerations.
4. SAP 2000 software is used for performing IDA in this study. While other
advanced finite element software can be used for performing complicated
analysis like IDA
5. The study can be done by considering effect of infill wall to reflect the
realistic performance of structure.
6. Variation in material type is not considered in this study. So same study can be
done by taking material property as a variable.
76
REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers, (2010), Minimum design loads for buildings
and other structures, ASCE standard, American Society of Civil Engineers:
Structural Engineering Institute
Badri, R. K., & Moghadam, M. N. (2015). The Variance of Collapse Capacity of

Symmetric and Asymmetric Low-Rise RC-SMF Buildings. Journal of
earthquake engineering.
Bakera, J. W., & M.EERI. (2015). Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using
dynamic structural analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 31(1), 579-599.
Billah, A. a. (2014). Seismic Fragility Assessment of Highway Bridges. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering.
Boorea, D. M., Atkinson, G. M., & M.EERI. (2008). Ground-Motion Prediction
Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-
Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute,Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, No. 1, 99-138.
Causevic, M., & Mitrovic, S. (2010). Comparison between non-linear dynamic and
static seismic analysis of structures according to European and US provisions.
Bull Earthquake Eng.
Cornell, D. V. (2004). Appllied Incremental Dynaic Analysis. Earthquake spectra,
volume 2, Earthquake engineering research institute.
D, V., Cornell, & A., C. (2005). Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity of
multidegree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of
single degree of freedom approximation. J.strut.Eng.
DEIERLEIN, J. M. (2004). A framework methodology for performance-based
earthquake engineering. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering .
Dimitrios Vamvatsikos, C. A. (2002). Incremental Dynaic Analysis. Earthquake
engineering and Structural dynamics.
Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA 356:2000 (2000), “Prestandard and
Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings”
Gautham. A, K. G. (2016). Fragility Analysis – A Tool to Assess Seismic
Performance of. ScienceDirect.
George, H. D., & Asterios, L. A. (2010). Nonlinear behaviourof RC frames under
repeated strong groundmotions. Science Direct.
Ghobarah, A. (2001). Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of
development. Elsevier.
Günay, M., & Mosalam, K. (2012). PEER Performance Based Earthquake. 15 WCEE.
77
Haider, S. M., Nizamani, Z., & Yip, C. C. (2020). Non linear dynamic assessment of
low rise RC building model under sequential ground motions. Structural
Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 74, No. 6.
Hatzivassiliou, M., & D.Hatzigeorgiou, G. (2015). Seismic sequence effects on three-
dimensional reinforced concrete buildings. Science Direct.
Hemant B. Kaushik, D. C. (2007). Stress-Strain Characteristics of Clay Brick
Masonry under Uniaxial Compression. JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING.
Ibarra, L. F., & Krawinkler, H. (2004). GLOBAL COLLAPSE OF
DETERIORATING MDOF SYSTEMS. 13thWorld Conference on
Earthquake Engineering,Vancouver, B.C., Canada,papaer no.116.
Iyama, J. (2012). Estimation of probability distribution of the residual displacement of
bilinear SDOF systemsafter earthquake ground motions. The University of
Tokyo, Japan.
Jorge Ruiz, G. (2012). Main-Shock - Aftershock Ground Motion Features and Their
Influence in Building's Seismic Response. Journal of Earthquake Engineering.
Kawashima, K., MacRae, G. A., Hoshikuma, J.-i., & Nagaya, K. (2013). RESIDUAL
DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE SPECTRUM. ASCE library.
Lignos, D. G., A.M.ASCE, Krawinkler, H., & M.ASCE. (2013). Development and
Utilization of Structural Component Databases for Performance-Based
Earthquake Engineering. Journal of structural engineering.
Liolios, H. G. (2010). Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong
ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Engineering 30.
Maeda, K. M. (2018). Methodology to evaluate the collapse limit state of R/C frames
based on the seismic response spectru. Japan architectural review,Institute of
Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Manafpour, A. a. (2014). Probabilistic Approach to Performance-Based. ASCE.
Naeim, F., Bhatia, H., & Lobo, R. M. (2001). Performance Based Seismic
Engineering. Springer.
Nazri, F. M. (2018). Seismic Fragility Assessment for Buildings due to Earthquake
Excitation. Springer briefs in applied science and technology, springer.
Nazri, F. M., & Saruddin, S. N. (2015). Fragility curves for low- and mid-rise
buildings in Malaysia. ScienceDirect.
Nepal National Building Code NBC 105: 1994 , “Seismic Design of Buildings in
Nepal”
Nepal National Building Code NBC 105: 2020, “Seismic Design of Buildings in
Nepal
78
Nilesh Chandrakant Gaikwad, A. A. (2017). Scaling of Ground motions for
performing Incremenatal dynamic analysis of RC structures. International
Journal Of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovation in Technology,(IJARIT).
Oggu, P., & K., G. (2020). Assessment of three-dimensional RC moment-resisting
frames under repeated earthquakes. science direct, 1-18.
Raghunandan, M., Liel, A. B., & Luco, N. (2014). Aftershock collapse vulnerability
assessment of reinforced concrete frame structures. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics.
Roberto Villaverde, P. M. (2007). Methods to Assess the Seismic Collapse Capacity
of Building Structures: State of the Art. Asce library.
Seung-Yul Yun, M., Hamburger, R. O., Cornell, C. A., & Foutch, D. A. (2002).
Seismic Performance Evaluation for Steel Moment Frames. JOURNAL OF
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING .
Shafei, B., Zareian, F., & Lignos, D. G. (2011). A simplified method for collapse
capacity assessment of moment-resisting frame and shear wall structural
systems. Science Direct.
Xue, Q., Wu, C.-W., Chen, C.-C., & Chen, K.-C. (2007). The draft code for
performance-based seismic design of buildings in Taiwan. Elsevier.
Yassif, I. E., & Motsafa, E.-s. M. (2011). Seismic fragility curves for mid-rise
reinforced concrete frames in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The IES Journal Part
A: Civil & Structural Engineering, Vol 4.
Yue Li, M., Ruiqiang Song, S., & John W. Van De Lindt, M. (2014). Collapse
Fragility of Steel Structures Subjected to Earthquake Mainshock-Aftershock
Sequences. Journal of Structural Engineering,DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0001019.
79

009 Pooja Maharjan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

009 Pooja Maharjan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

009 Pooja Maharjan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

THESIS NO: S009/075

Seismic Fragility Assessment of Rc Frame Structures Under Main Shock-

Aftershock Sequences Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my respected supervisor

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 13

1.1 Background of study ..................................................................................... 13

2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 18

3.1 Performance based earthquake engineering ....................................................... 26

4.1 Assumptions of study ......................................................................................... 38

5.1 Selection of ground motion data ........................................................................ 43

6.1 Maximum Lateral Storey Displacement ............................................................ 50

Figure2.1: Methods to develop fragility analysis ............................................................. 20

Figure 3.1: Flowchart of PEER PBEE framework ........................................................... 26

Figure4.1: 3D of low rise building Figure4.2: 2D of low rise building ................ 39

Figure5.1: Unmatched response spectrum of Main shock ground motions...................... 45

Figure6.1: Takeda hysteresis model ................................................................................. 49

Table 3.1: Damage threshold spectral displacements ....................................................... 28

Table 4.1: Column detail for low rise building ................................................................. 40

Table 5.2: List of earthquake ground motions .................................................................. 43

Table 6 .1: Defining limit states ........................................................................................ 57

1.1 Background of study

Earthquakes are major unavoidable and unpredictable natural phenomenon which

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) is one of a rapidly growing idea

1.2 Need of Research

The objective of the study is Seismic Fragility assessment of RC frame Structures

1. To compare the response of the structure when subjected to Series of Main

3. To measure the Post main-shock Collapse capacity and Post Aftershock

This section describes the methodology followed to obtain the above-mentioned

1. Review of existing literatures and seismic design code provisions for

Figure 1.1: Methodology of study

1.5 Organization of Thesis

 Chapter 2: presents the review of provisions in different codes for non-

 Chapter 3: contains theoretical background used in this study. This

 Chapter 4: contains the description of selected structure, structural

 Chapter 5: includes details about selected earthquake ground motions.

 Chapter 6: presents the results obtained from matching and scaling

2.2 Literature Review

2.2.1 Performance Based Earthquake Engineering

Deierlein (2004) developed the robust methodology for performing Performance

2.2.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis

Dimitrios Vamvatsikos (2002) established and defined the basic principles of

Cornell (2004) proposed a practical method to perform Incremental dynamic analysis

2.2.3 Approach of Fragility Analysis

Gautham. A( 2016) performed nonlinear static using Capacity Spectrum method on

Figure2.1: Methods to develop fragility analysis

2.2.4 Effects of sequence earthquakes on dynamic performance of buildings

2.2.5 Residual Displacement

Kawashima, MacRae, Hoshikuma and Nagaya (2013) performed analysis of many

2.2.6 Collapse Capacity

Ibarra and Krawinkler (2004) developed a method to determine global collapse

2.3 Review of codes

a. Nepal- NBC 105: 2020– Structural analysis and design

b. Nepal- NBC 105: 1994 – Spectral factor

c. Indian- IS 1893(Part I): Spectral factor

d. USA- ASCE 7: 2016- Non-linear dynamic analysis

e. Europe- BS EN 19981: 2004- Methods of analysis

Table 2.1: Soil parameters

Parameters/ Soil type A Soil type B Soil type C Soil type D

= 119.20.23*(3.2) =14.13 Kn/m (Deduction of Beam depth has been neglected