Relating Seismic Design Level and Seismic Performance:

Fragility-Based Investigation of RC Moment-Resisting

Frame Buildings in China
Xiao-Hui Yu, Ph.D. 1; Da-Gang Lu, Ph.D. 2; and Bing Li, Ph.D., M.ASCE 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Analytical fragility analyses are conducted to investigate the impact of seismic design level on the seismic performance of RC
moment-resisting frame buildings designed according to the provisions of the current Chinese seismic code. Four groups of buildings of low-
to-mid height (3, 5, 8, and 10 stories) are studied, each of which accounts for diverse levels of seismic design, namely, precode, low code,
medium code, and high code. Fragility relationships are derived for each building using nonlinear time-history analyses with 100 real ground-
motion records. The results show that the buildings designed for a higher seismic code level exhibit less fragility as improving the seismic
design level leads to a raised fragility median and a reduced fragility dispersion. Data on the reference seismic hazards with the probabilities of
exceedance of 10 and 2–3% in 50 years show that almost all the buildings can satisfy the performance requirements of reparability and no
collapse, respectively. However, the damage limitation performance objective, which is associated with 63.2% in 50-year hazard, cannot be
satisfactorily achieved by medium-code and high-code buildings. The enhancement of structural resistance caused by the improvement of
seismic design level is counteracted by the simultaneously increased seismic action; therefore, the limit-state probabilities of the buildings at
the corresponding reference earthquakes are not decreased but increased accordingly. The current Chinese seismic design code seems
conservative because the buildings show marginal potential of suffering serious damages endangering life when subjected to the seismic
hazard level higher than it was designed for. Thus, it is possible to account for larger anticipated nonlinear behavior in the definition of seismic
design force. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001069. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Fragility analysis; RC moment-resisting frame building; Seismic design level; Seismic performance.

Introduction uncertainties associated with structural capacity and imposed seis-

In recent years, China has suffered serious earthquake disasters.
Several catastrophic events, such as the 2008 Wenchuan earth-
quake, the 2010 Yushu earthquake, the 2013 Ya’an earthquake,
and the 2014 Ludian earthquake, have led to severe economic
losses and heavy casualties. To meet this challenge, the latest
version of Chinese seismic design maps (GB18306-2015)
(National Standard of the People’s Republic of China 2015) has
eliminated the regions that were considered non-seismically active
in previous versions and updated the seismic design levels for most
areas of China. This change gives rise to two specific questions,
namely, the ability of buildings to cope with higher seismic hazard
levels than originally designed for and whether increasing the seis-
mic design levels would lead to an expected improvement in
performance. To answer these questions, an investigation for the
impact of seismic design level on seismic performance of Chinese
code–compliant buildings becomes a pressing need. In light of the
1
Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of
Technology, Heilongjiang Sheng 150001, China. E-mail: xiaohui.yu@
hit.edu.cn
2
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of
Technology, Heilongjiang Sheng 150001, China. E-mail: ludagang@
hit.edu.cn
3
Associate Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore, Singapore 639798 (correspond-
ing author). E-mail: cbli@ntu.edu.sg
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 6, 2015; approved on
February 28, 2017; published online on May 27, 2017. Discussion period
open until October 27, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
mic demand, a probabilistic tool in terms of fragility is used in this
study to meet this need.
Fragility relationships are a fundamental component in seismic
risk assessment (Wen et al. 2004; Ellingwood et al. 2007), describ-
ing the probabilities of reaching or exceeding the predetermined
limit states for a given ground-motion intensity. Over the past
years, many tools and methodologies have been proposed to assess
the fragility of buildings (Calvi et al. 2006). Generally, fragility
relationships can be classified into four categories—empirical,
judgmental, analytical, and hybrid—according to whether the dam-
age data were collected from postearthquake damage surveys, ex-
pert judgments, analytical simulations, or combinations of such
data (Rossetto and Elnashai 2003). Each category of fragility rela-
tionships has its own features and limitations (Kwon and Elnashai
2006). In reality, analytical fragility relationships are widely
adopted to evaluate structural performance under earthquakes,
given its relative reliability and flexibility in application. Several
studies have been conducted using analytical fragility relationships
to assess the performance for RC frame buildings designed by U.S.
and European codes (Dumova-Jovanoska 2000; Ramamoorthy
et al. 2006, 2008; Kircil and Polat 2006; Ozer and Erberik
2008; Erberik 2008; Celik and Ellingwood 2010; Howary and
Mehanny 2011; Jeong et al. 2012; Fardis et al. 2012). Because
of the difference in material quantities and detailing shown in
different design codes, the fragility relationships from U.S. and
European buildings cannot be directly used for Chinese buildings.
Therefore, it is necessary to generate fragility relationships for
Chinese RC frame buildings, especially considering the current
building stock in China, where the RC frames constitutes a consid-
erable part. Nevertheless, research on the fragility relationships

© ASCE 04017075-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1

 for typical RC frame buildings designed according to the current
Chinese codes is still limited. Wu et al. (2012) derived fragility
curves for typical Chinese RC frame buildings by performing non-
linear time-history analyses (NTHA) with 30 ground motions.
However, only three RC frame buildings with 3, 5, and 10 stories
were involved in this study, which cannot provide a comprehensive
viewpoint on the seismic performance of Chinese code–compliant
RC frames. Moreover, the effect of seismic design level on fragility
relationships has not been investigated. This knowledge gap stim-
ulates a fragility-based study to relate seismic design level and seis-
mic performance of RC frame structures designed according to
current Chinese codes.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This study aims to use analytically derived fragility relation-

ships to look into the seismic performance of typical multistory
RC moment-resisting frame structures in China with an emphasis
on investigating the effect of seismic design level. To this end, four
groups of buildings, covering a low-to-mid height range of 3-, 5-, Fig. 1. Seismic design response spectrum in GB5001-2010
8-, and 10-story RC moment-resisting frames, are designed accord-
ing to the current Chinese design codes, each of which accounts for
four low to high levels of seismic design. Nonlinear time-history

T1
analyses are performed for each building by using 100 real 0 ≤ T 1 ≤ 0.1s∶αðT 1 Þ ¼ αmax ðη2 − 0.45Þ þ 0.45 ð1Þ
0.1
ground-motion records to obtain response statistics necessary to
derive fragility relationships. The obtained fragility relationships
are further used as the basis to compare the performance of the 0.1 ≤ T 1 ≤ T g ∶αðT 1 Þ ¼ αmax ð2Þ
buildings designed for various seismic code levels to extract the
effect of seismic design level on structural safety.  γ
Tg
T g ≤ T 1 ≤ 4T g ∶αðT 1 Þ ¼ η2 αmax ð3Þ
T1
Overview of Seismic Design Criteria in the
Chinese Code 4T g ≤ T 1 ≤ 6.0s∶αðT 1 Þ ¼ αmax ½η2 0.2γ − η1 ðT 1 − 5T g Þ ð4Þ

The basic requirements specified in the current Chinese code for where α = earthquake affecting coefficient; αmax = maximum of
seismic design of building (GB50011-2010) (National Standard earthquake affecting coefficient; T 1 = structural natural period;
of the People’s Republic of China 2010b) are the damage limita- T g = characteristic site period; and the attenuation index, γ, is
tion, reparability, and no collapse. To satisfy the damage limitation expressed by
requirement, no damage is to be sustained when the structure is 0.05 − ζ
subjected to a seismic action with a larger probability of exceed- γ ¼ 0.9 þ ð5Þ
0.3 þ 6ζ
ance than the design seismic action. The reference seismic action is
based on a frequent earthquake (FE) associated with a reference where ζ = damping ratio; and the damping correction factors, η1
probability of exceedance, 63.2%, in 50 years (or a reference return and η2 , are determined by
period of 50 years). To be classified as reparable, the structure
should be designed to withstand the design seismic action without 0.05 − ζ
η1 ¼ 0.02 þ ð6Þ
serious damages, thus retaining its serviceability after ordinary re- 4 þ 32ζ
pair or without repair. The design seismic action is also called de-
sign basis earthquake (DBE) with a probability of exceedance of 0.05 − ζ
η2 ¼ 1 þ ð7Þ
10% in 50 years (or a return period of 475 years). When subjected 0.08 þ 1.6ζ
to the rare earthquake (RE) that has a probability of exceedance
between 2 and 3% in 50 years (or a return period of 2,000 years), The value of αmax is associated with the seismic design level of
the structure should meet the no-collapse requirement without the the structure, which depends on the seismic fortification intensity
occurrence of either collapse (local or global) or severe damages (SFI) and the design peak ground acceleration (PGA) of the struc-
that will endanger human lives. As per code (GB50011-2010), tural location site. Table 1 shows the values of αmax given in
the requirement of damage limitation and noncollapse—also called GB50011-2010 for diverse seismic design levels, in which the val-
elastic limit and plastic limit, depending on the type of building ues in association with FE are used for calculating design base
system—are satisfied by checking if the interstory drift ratios
are restricted to the given fraction of the story height.
In GB50011-2010, the horizontal seismic base shear can be de- Table 1. Values of αmax Associated with Diverse Seismic Design Levels
termined as the product of an earthquake affecting coefficient and Seismic design levels [seismic fortification intensity
an effective seismic weight. This base shear calculation is used for (degree) + seismic design PGA (g)]
Earthquake
the vertically regular structure with a height of no more than 40 m.
hazards 6 þ 0.05 7 þ 0.10 7 þ 0.15 8 þ 0.20 8 þ 0.30 9 þ 0.40
The effective seismic weight commonly accounts for 85% of the
total gravity load of the RC frame buildings (GB50011-2010). FE 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.32
A horizontal design response spectrum as shown in Fig. 1 is defined DBE 0.11 0.22 0.33 0.45 0.66 0.88
MCE 0.25 0.50 0.72 0.90 1.20 1.40
by using the following expressions:

© ASCE 04017075-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1

 shear. As observed from Table 1, a factor of approximately 2.8 is
implicitly applied to reduce the seismic action in association with
10% in 50-year hazard to that corresponding to 63.2% in 50-year
hazard. There is no nonlinear response modification factors, such
as the R factor in the U.S. code (ASCE/SEI 7-10) (ASCE 2010)
or the q factor in the European code (CEN 2003), applied in
GB50011-2010. Rather, the ductility in the seismic capacity of
the structural elements is considered by using an adjustment factor
(Duan and Hueste 2012).
Four seismic design levels are considered in the design of RC
frame structures, including (1) precode (PC) level with a SFI of 6°
and a design PGA of 0.05 g; (2) low-code (LC) level with a SFI of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
7° and a design PGA of 0.10 g; (3) medium-code (MC) level with a
SFI of 8° and a design PGA of 0.20 g; and (4) high-code (HC) level
with a SFI of 8° and a design PGA of 0.3 g. The design level cor-
responding to a SFI of 9° and a design PGA of 0.4 g is not taken
into account because it is rarely used for common RC frame build-
ings in China.
Descriptions of the Reference Buildings
A set of buildings were selected in this study to represent contem-
porary low-rise to midrise RC moment-resisting frame buildings in
China. They can be categorized into four basic groups of 3, 5, 8,
and 10 stories. Each group consists of four buildings that were
designed accounting for PC, LC, MC, and HC seismic levels with
design PGAs of 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, and 0.30 g, respectively. For sim-
plicity, the reference buildings are hereafter labeled as F–number of
story (3, 5, 8, or 10)–seismic design level (PC, LC, MC, or HC).
The same overall plan dimension of 14.4 × 14.4 m was used for all
16 buildings, where a long corridor runs through the center of the
floor plan parallel to the long direction of the building. This ar-
rangement is very typical in China for RC building construction,
and a frame is shaped with the transverse direction composed of
longer exterior bays with a narrower interior bay. The bottom story
of all buildings has a height of 4.5 m. All other stories have a con-
stant height of 3.3 m. The plan and sectional elevation of the refer-
ence buildings are illustrated in Fig. 2.
All buildings were assumed to be founded on a medium stiff soil
consisting of medium dense detritus, gravel, or medium sand. This
soil condition belongs to the Site Class II with an equivalent shear
wave velocity between 250 and 500 m=s (GB50011-2010). The
characteristic site period T g is 0.35 s. Earthquake loading was con-
sidered in combination with gravity loading G þ 0.5Q, where G
denotes the permanent loads, and Q represents the live loads.
Reference frames
6000
2400
6000
4@3600
(a)
Fig. 2. Reference buildings: (a) plan view; (b) elevation view; n ¼ 2, 4, 7, 9
© ASCE
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1
The permanent loads, including exterior walls, interior light parti-
tions, and superimposed dead load, were assumed to be 4.5 kN=m2
in total. The live load was assumed to be 2.0 kN=m2 in accordance
to the requirement for a typical office building.
The design of the structural member follows the Chinese code
for design of concrete structures (GB50010-2010) (National
Standard of the People’s Republic of China 2010a). The nominal
properties of the materials used in design are as follows: (1) com-
pressive strength of concrete = 26.8 MPa; (2) modulus of elasticity
for concrete = 32,500 MPa; (3) yield strengths = 400 and 235 MPa
for longitudinal and hoop reinforcement, respectively; and
(4) modulus of elasticity for reinforcement = 200 GPa. The
reinforcement details for the beams are summarized in Fig. 3.
The development length for anchorage of reinforcement in beams
is shown in Fig. 3(a). According to GB50010-2010, the basic
anchorage length laE for deformed bars in tension is calculated by
fy
laE ¼ ζ aE ψ d ð8Þ
ft
where ζ aE = factor reflecting the effect of seismic design level
(ζ aE ¼ 1.0 for PC level; ζ aE ¼ 1.05 for LC and MC levels; and
ζ aE ¼ 1.15 for HC level); ψ = surface factor reflecting the effect
of reinforcement type (ψ ¼ 0.16 for the plain steel bars that are
used in the structural design); fy = yield strength of reinforcement;
ft = tensional strength of concrete; and d = tensile bar diameter.
The cutoff points of the beam top bars are located at a distance
of 0.25lb1 (or 0.25lb2 ) from the column face at both span ends,
where lb1 and lb2 are the clear spans for the beams of the exterior
(6,400 mm wide) and interior (2,400 mm wide) shorter bays, re-
spectively. The reinforcement layouts of the beam cross sections
inside and outside the region required closer spacing of hoop
reinforcement are shown in Figs. 3(b and c), respectively, where
the slab is 120 mm thick, and the concrete cover is 25 mm. Fig. 4
shows the reinforcement details for the columns. The hoop
reinforcement with closer spacing is developed into the beam-
column joint region to enhance the resistance of the joint [Fig. 4(a)].
Fig. 4(b) shows the column cross sections for the reference build-
ings, where the concrete cover is 30 mm. Table 2 provides param-
eters describing the hoop reinforcement details, where rs is the
hoop diameter, s1 and s2 are the spacing values of the hoop
reinforcement placed adjacent to the beam-column joint and in
the other regions, respectively, and sb and sc denote the develop-
ment lengths of the hoop reinforcement with closer spacing for
the beams and the columns, respectively. The aforementioned
reinforcement details show that the promotion of seismic design
n@3300
4500
6000 2400 6000
(b)
04017075-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(b)
Fig. 3. Reinforcement details of beams (unit: millimeter): (a) beam details; (b) Section A; (c) Section B
level consequently leads to the increase of both longitudinal and
hoop reinforcement.
Analytical Modeling
OpenSees was used to develop analytical models and simulate
structural inelastic behavior during an earthquake. This computer
program is an advanced computational platform for modeling and
analyzing the nonlinear response of systems by using a wide range
of material models, elements, and solution algorithms. Detailed
two-dimensional models were used for reference buildings owing
to the limited torsional effects. Rigid end zones were used for
beam-column joints modeling. Beams and columns were modeled
by using the nonlinear force-based beam-column elements with
plasticity concentrating over a specified hinge length at the element
ends (Scott and Fenves 2006). By using this type of element, the
nonlinear response can be accounted for in the region connecting
the two hinge ends when plasticity spread beyond the predefined
plastic hinge regions. Therefore, two sections were used for defin-
ing a beam-column element, i.e., one inside and one outside the
hinge zone. The hinge length Lp is determined according to the
formula presented by Panagiotakos and Fardis (2001), as shown
by Eq. (9)
Lp ¼ 0.18Ls þ 0.021asl db f y ð9Þ
© ASCE 04017075-4
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1
(c)
where Ls = shear span of the member; asl = indicator of the
pullout effect of longitudinal bars; and db = diameter of compres-
sive bars. The pullout effect of longitudinal bars is not considered
(asl ¼ 0); thus, the calculation of hinge length is simplified as
Lp ¼ 0.18Ls .
The rectangular section and T-section were used for the RC col-
umn and beam members, respectively. The slab width effective as a
T-beam flange was assumed as one-quarter of the span length of the
beam [ACI 318 (ACI 2008)]. The member sections were discre-
tized into fibers as reinforcement bars and the confined (core)
and unconfined (cover) concrete. A nonlinear constitutive material
model with isotropic strain hardening was adopted to define uni-
axial nonlinear behavior of reinforcement bars (Menegotto and
Pinto 1973). This model requires six parameters: f y , modulus of
elasticity (Es ), strain-hardening ratio (α), and the parameters
controlling the transition from the elastic to plastic branches
(CR1 , CR2 , and R0 ). The values of Es , α, CR1 , CR2 , and R0
are 200,000 MPa, 0.01, 0.925, 0.15, and 20, respectively. The yield
strengths f y for the longitudinal and hoop reinforcement are 378
and 235 MPa, respectively. The concrete material was represented
by a nonlinear constitutive model with degraded linear unloading/
reloading stiffness, and tensile strength is not given (Kent and Park
1971). For this model, four parameters are required: compressive
strength (fc ), maximum strain at compressive strength (εc ), crush-
ing strength (f cu ), and the strain at which the concrete is crushing
(εcu ). For the cover concrete, the compressive strength f c is
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 12Ø18 12Ø20 12Ø22
8Ø16 Ø10@100
Ø8@100 Ø8@100
Ø8@150 (Ø10@200)

550
(Ø8@200) (Ø8@200)

550
500
450
(Ø8@300)

450 500 550 550

F-3-PC F-3-LC F-3-MC F-3-MC
12Ø22 12Ø25

rs@s1
8Ø16 12Ø18

sc
Ø8@100 Ø8@100 Ø10@100
Ø8@150 (Ø10@200)

600
(Ø8@200) (Ø8@200)

600
500
450
(Ø8@300)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

rs@s2
D D 450 500 600 600
F-5-PC F-5-LC F-5-MC F-5-HC

12Ø18 12Ø22 16Ø25 20Ø25

Ø8@150 Ø8@100 Ø10@100 Ø10@100
(Ø8@300) (Ø8@200)
rs@s1

(Ø10@200) (Ø10@200)
600

600

700
700
sc

C C

600 600
(a) F-8-PC F-8-LC 700 700
F-8-MC F-8-HC
24Ø25 28Ø25
16Ø25
16Ø22
Ø8@100 Ø10@100 Ø10@100
Ø8@150 (Ø10@200)

800
(Ø10@200)

800
(Ø8@200)
(Ø8@300)
750
700

700 750 800 800

F-10-PC F-10-MC F-10-MC F-10-HC
(b)

Fig. 4. Reinforcement details of columns (unit: millimeter): (a) column details; (b) Section C (D)

Table 2. Hoop Reinforcement Parameters of Reference Buildings Geometric nonlinearities were accounted for by using the P-Δ
coordinate transformation.
Reference buildings rs =mm s1 =mm2 s2 =mm sb =mm sc =mm The aforementioned modeling approaches cannot account for
F-3-PC 8 150 300 750 500 the local failure occurring in the connection between the bar
F-3-LC 8 100 200 750 500 and the concrete, such as the brittle anchorage failure that may oc-
F-3-MC 8 100 200 750 550 cur in the bars with inadequate transverse reinforcement. However,
F-3-HC 10 100 200 1,000 550 the developed analytical model is actually sufficient for the present
F-5-PC 8 150 300 750 500 study because the global performance of the building is the only
F-5-LC 8 100 200 750 500
aspect of concern. Besides, this model is efficient and thus practical
F-5-MC 8 100 200 750 600
F-5-HC 10 100 200 1,000 600 for performing a great number of NTHAs that are required in the
F-8-PC 8 150 300 750 600 following section on demand estimation. The key differences in the
F-8-LC 8 100 200 750 650 models for the buildings with varying seismic design levels are re-
F-8-MC 10 100 200 750 700 flected by the variation in the fiber-based RC sections according to
F-8-HC 10 100 200 1,200 700 different reinforcement details.
F-10-PC 8 150 300 750 700
F-10-LC 8 100 200 750 750
F-10-MC 10 100 200 750 800 Seismic Demand Estimation
F-10-HC 12 100 200 1,200 800

29.1 MPa. The value of fcu is assumed to be zero because of con-
crete cracking. The concrete strains corresponding to fc and fcu are
determined as 2 × fc =Ec (Kent and Park 1971) and 0.002, respec-
tively, where Ec ¼ 31,500 MPa is the elastic modulus of concrete
(GB50010-2010). As for the core concrete, the model proposed by
Mander et al. (1988) was used to consider the confinement effect
offered by the actual layouts, diameter, and spacing of stirrups.
Fig. 5 summarizes the overall structural modeling details. The
first-story columns were modeled with a fixed-base condition.
Ground-Motion Records
Nonlinear time-history analyses are performed for each reference
building by inputting a suite of real ground-motion records to ob-
tain response statistics for deriving fragility relationships. In this
study, a set of 100 real ground-motion records were selected from
the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER)
ground-motion database (Ancheta et al. 2013). The list of records
can be found in Lu et al. (2014). The selected records cover a wide
range of earthquake magnitude (M w ) and distance (R), as shown in
Fig. 6, in which four M w -R bins (Medina and Krawinkler 2003),

© ASCE 04017075-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1

 Plastic hinge Plastic hinge
region region
Lp Lp

Element with hinges

Unconfined concrete
fibers Steel fibers Rigid joint

Confined concrete
Fiber section fibers
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Stress
Stress Es Ending
α
fy
Strain CR1
R0CR2 Strain
Confined

Unconfined Starting
Concrete Steel

Fig. 5. Structural model approaches

8 as the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) (Vamvatsikos and

LMSR LMLR
Cornell 2002), the multiple-stripe method (MSA) (Jalayer and
Cornell 2009), and the cloud method (Shome et al. 1998). Com-
7.5
R=30km pared with IDA and MSA, the cloud method is particularly efficient
but can also provide a good estimate of the demand statistics across
7 the range of earthquake intensities considered in the ground-motion
bins (Mackie and Stojadinovic 2005). Therefore, in the present
Mw

study, the cloud method is adopted for developing demand model,

6.5 Mw=6.5
6
SMSR SMLR
5.5
10 20 30 40 50
R/km
Fig. 6. Distribution of the selected ground-motion records in different
M w -R bins
i.e., large magnitude–small distance bin (LMSR: 6.5 < M w < 7.0;
13 km < R < 30 km), large magnitude–large distance bin (LMLR:
6.5 < M w < 7.0; 30 km < R < 60 km), small magnitude–small
distance bin (SMSR: 5.8 < M w < 6.5; 13 km < R < 30 km), and
small magnitude–large distance bin (SMLR: 5.8 < M w < 6.5;
30 km < R < 60 km), are used to illustrate the distribution of
the records. The most unfavorable M w -R bin, i.e., LMSR, has the
largest number of records, whereas the least records belong to the
SMLR bin as they will not lead to significant damage for the struc-
tures. All records have R values of greater than 10 km to avoid
including the directivity pulse-type effects. Besides, all ground
motions are recorded on sites with National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) Soil Types C or D (stiff soil or soft
rock), similar to the soil condition at the building site.
Demand Model
There are three alternative nonlinear dynamic analysis procedures
available in the literature for characterizing the demand model, such
and then 100 cycles of NTHAs are performed for each reference
building with the selected ground-motion records. The maximum
interstory drift ratio D is used as the demand measure because of its
close relationship to structural damages and performance levels.
The 5% damped spectral acceleration Sa at the fundamental period
T 1 is used to define earthquake intensity because it can lead to an
60 efficient demand model representing the relationship between
structural response and earthquake intensity with less uncertainty
than that using PGA (Shome et al. 1998). The records’ Sa values
and the associated drift responses form the cloud data for demand
statistics. Assuming that the drift demand D follows a lognormal
distribution at a given Sa intensity (Cornell et al. 2002), the demand
distribution parameters can be directly obtained by linear regres-
sion by using the method of least squares in the logarithmic space
of the cloud data
ln mDjSa ¼ a þ b ln Sa ð10Þ
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sP
i¼1 ðln Di − ln mDjSa Þ
N
β DjSa ¼ ð11Þ
N−2
where mDjSa and β DjSa = median and standard deviation of the natu-
ral logarithm of the conditional drift demand for a given Sa inten-
sity, respectively; a and b = regression parameters; N = number of
input ground-motion records; and Di = drift response caused by the
ith ground-motion record.
The nonlinear response data and the linear regressions in the
logarithmic space are shown in Fig. 7. The three demand param-
eters a, b, and β DjSa are calculated for each reference building in
Table 3. It is clear that the linear relationship shown in Eq. (10) can

© ASCE 04017075-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1

 10
0
F-3-PC 0 F-3-LC 0 F-3-MC 0 F-3-HC
10 10 10

-1 -1 -1 -1
10 10 10 10

-1 0 -1 0
-1 0
10
-1
10
0 10 10 10 10
10 10
First-mode spectral acceleration, Sa (T1, 5%)

0 0 0
10 0 10 10
F-5-PC 10 F-5-LC F-5-MC F-5-HC

-1
10 10
-1 -1 -1
10 10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
0
10 10
0
10
0

F-8-PC F-8-LC F-8-MC F-8-HC

-1 -1
10 10 -1 -1
10 10

-1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

F-10-PC F-10-LC F-10-MC F-10-HC

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10 10
-1

-1 0 -1 0 -1 0
10 10 10 10 -1 0 10 10
10 10
Maximum interstory drift, θmax (%)

Fig. 7. NTHA response cloud of the reference buildings and the linear regression relationships in log-log space

fit well the demand data in the logarithmic space. This result is have revealed that the uncertainty from concrete and steel materials
confirmed by the coefficients of determination R2 (Table 3), which tends to be overshadowed by that from ground motions (Lee and
are greater than 0.70 for all regression results. For the buildings Mosalam 2005; Kwon and Elnashai 2006; Padgett and DesRoches
with the same height, the value of β DjSa is slightly decreased with 2007). Therefore, earthquake ground motion is considered as the
the increase of seismic design level. This is because increasing seis- only random aspect, whereas the material parameters are deter-
mic design level leads to the enhancement of structural global stiff- mined by their means in accordance to the requirement of perfor-
ness and the reduction of seismic response and the corresponding mance assessment in GB50011-2010.
variation.
The seismic demands of the reference buildings are obtained
without considering material randomness because previous studies Seismic Fragility Analysis

Identification of Performance Levels

Table 3. Seismic Demand Parameters for Reference Buildings
Four basic performance levels are adopted for fragility assessment,
Reference building a b β 2DjSa R2 namely, slight damage (SD), moderate damage (MD), extensive
F-3-PC −3.91 0.82 0.40 0.72 damage (ED), and complete damage (CD) levels (NIBS 2004).
F-3-LC −4.35 0.78 0.33 0.85 Interstory drift ratio is used as the performance indicator because
F-3-MC −4.51 0.81 0.33 0.80 1)) it is compatible with the results of drift demand estimation, and
F-3-HC −4.55 0.86 0.30 0.85 (2) it is closely related to the performance levels provided in the
F-5-PC −3.51 0.91 0.40 0.72 current seismic design provisions [GB50011-2010; ASCE/SEI
F-5-LC −3.75 0.89 0.37 0.76 41-06 (ASCE 2007)]. An interstory drift ratio of 0.18% (1/550)
F-5-MC −4.12 0.84 0.34 0.78
F-5-HC −4.24 0.86 0.28 0.85
is used to determine the SD level. This drift has been used in
F-8-PC −3.56 0.80 0.41 0.72 GB50011-2010 as the deformation threshold for checking whether
F-8-LC −3.68 0.78 0.40 0.74 a RC frame building can satisfy the requirement of damage
F-8-MC −3.69 0.86 0.38 0.76 limitation when it is subjected to the FE hazard. For the ED per-
F-8-HC −3.71 0.95 0.23 0.90 formance level, its deformation threshold is determined as an
F-10-PC −3.50 0.79 0.34 0.79 interstory drift ratio of 2% in accordance with the life safety per-
F-10-LC −3.54 0.77 0.35 0.80 formance level for the RC frame buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-06).
F-10-MC −3.61 0.79 0.35 0.78 According to GB50011-2010, this drift is viewed as the deforma-
F-10-HC −3.70 0.86 0.30 0.86
tion limit for the RC frame buildings to avoid severe damages that

© ASCE 04017075-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1

 can endanger life. The median interstory drift ratio (1.09%) be- where PðLSjSa Þ = exceedance probability of a predefined LS con-
tween that corresponding to the SD and ED performance levels ditioned on a given Sa intensity (it is called LS probability here-
is assumed for the MD level, which is almost identical to that after); Φ½· = standard normal probability integral; mC and β C =
(1%) for the limit of immediate occupancy (ASCE/SEI 41-06). median and standard deviation of the natural logarithm of drift
As for the CD performance level, an interstory drift ratio of 4%, capacity C, respectively; and β M = uncertainty caused by the im-
which is suggested by ASCE/SEI 41-06 provisions as the limit perfection of analytical modeling. The demand parameters mDjSa
of collapse prevention performance level, is assumed. and β DjSa have been quantified from the statistics of seismic de-
mand data (Fig. 7 and Table 3). The modeling uncertainty β M is
taken as 0.2 on the basis of the assumption that the modeling pro-
Derivation of Fragility Relationships
cess yields a response that is within 30% of the actual value with
The seismic fragility is described by the probability of the structural 90% confidence (Wen et al. 2004). The median drift capacities mC
demand reaching or exceeding the stipulated limit states (LSs) as a were often assigned with the quantitative performance levels pro-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

function of Sa . A lognormal distribution function is adopted for vided in the design codes (Ramamoorthy et al. 2006; Ellingwood
fragility assessment (Wen et al. 2004): et al. 2007; Howary and Mehanny 2011) or identified from the
pushover curves of the structures (Erberik and Elnashai 2004;
0 1 Ramamoorthy et al. 2006; Kwon and Elnashai 2006; Ji et al.
ln mC − ln mDjSa
PðLSjSa Þ ¼ 1 − Φ@qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiA 2007). The former approach is used in this study, and the values
β 2C þ β 2DjSa þ β 2M of mC are assigned by the interstory drift ratios of 0.18, 1, 2,
0 1 and 4% for the SD, MD, ED, and CD performance levels, respec-
ln mDjSa − ln mC tively. The variation in drift capacities is assumed as β C ¼ 0.3
¼ Φ@qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiA ð12Þ for all LSs (Wen et al. 2004). This assumption was also used in
β 2C þ β 2DjSa þ β 2M other studies (Ramamoorthy et al. 2006; Hueste and Bai 2007).

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

P[LS|Sa]

SD
P[LS|Sa]

P[LS|Sa]
0.6
P[LS|Sa]

MD 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 ED
0.4 0.4 0.4
CD
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
(a) Sa/g (b) Sa /g (c) S a/g (d) Sa/g

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
P[LS|Sa]
P[LS|Sa]

P[LS|Sa]
P[LS|Sa]

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
(e) Sa /g (f) Sa/g (g) Sa/g (h) Sa/g

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

P[LS|Sa]
P[LS|Sa]
P[LS|Sa]
P[LS|Sa]

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
(i) Sa/g (j) Sa/g (k) Sa/g (l) Sa/g

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

P[LS|Sa]
P[LS|Sa]
P[LS|Sa]

P[LS|Sa]

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
(m) Sa/g (n) Sa/g (o) Sa/g (p) Sa/g

Fig. 8. Seismic fragility curves of reference buildings: (a) F-3-PC; (b) F-3-LC; (c) F-3-MC; (d) F-3-HC; (e) F-5-PC; (f) F-5-LC; (g) F-5-MC;
(h) F-5-HC; (i) F-8-PC; (j) F-8-LC; (k) F-8-MC; (l) F-8-HC; (m) F-10-PC; (n) F-10-LC; (o) F-10-MC; (p) F-10-HC

© ASCE 04017075-8 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1

 1.00 0.8
decrease βR
3-story buildings 5-story buildings 8-story buildings 10-story buildings
increase βR 0.7
P[LS|Sa] 0.75

0.6
decrease mR increase mR

βR
0.50
0.5

0.25 0.4

0.3
0.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-PC -LC MC -HC -PC LC MC -HC -PC LC MC HC -PC -LC MC -HC

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 F-3 F-3 F-3- F-3 F-5 F-5- F-5- F-5 F-8 F-8- F-8- F-8- F-10 F-10 -10- F-10
F
Sa /g
Fig. 11. Fragility dispersions β R of reference buildings
Fig. 9. Influence of mR and β R on the shape of a fragility curve

In Ellingwood et al. (2007), a similar scale of uncertainty, Fig. 9 shows significant effects of mR and β R on the shape of a
β C ¼ 0.25, was assumed in LS capacities. fragility curve. The value of mR dominates the global location of
Fragility curves of the reference buildings are derived for four the fragility curve, and its variation can lead to a global shift of the
performance levels (SD, MD, ED, and CD) and shown in Fig. 8. curve. The fragility dispersion β R controls the curve slope. The
For the same building group, the ones designed for higher seismic smaller the value of β R is, the steeper the fragility curve is.
design level show lower fragility than their lower-design-level According to Eq. (14), the values of mR and β R are calculated
counterparts. For a clearer understanding of the effect of seismic for the reference buildings and shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respec-
design level, two parameters that are closely related to fragility tively. As shown in Fig. 10, the promotion of seismic design level
relationships—fragility median (mR ) and fragility dispersion causes an increase of fragility medians, representing the improve-
(β R )—are examined, where mR is represented by the Sa intensity ment of structural resistance. The increment of mR is less for mid-
that has a failure probability of 50%, and β R describes the total rise buildings (8- and 10-story) than for low-rise buildings (3- and
variation of fragility. The quantitative format of mR and β R can 5-story). This result reveals the significant effect of the building
be derived by substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (12), yielding height on fragility medians. A downward trend is observed from
(Lu et al. 2014) the fragility dispersions (Fig. 11) according to the growing levels
2 3 2 3 of seismic design. This observation is consistent with that from
ln mDjIM − ln mC a þ b ln S − ln m seismic demand data (Fig. 7) because high seismic design levels
PðLSjSa Þ ¼ Φ4qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi5 ¼ Φ4qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi5
a C
will give rise to large global stiffness of the reference buildings
β 2DjIM þ β 2C þ β 2M β 2DjIM þ β 2C þ β 2M
and consequently reduce the structural inelastic deformation under
8 9
<ln S − ln ½m = expðaÞ1=b =
 seismic actions. The smaller inelastic deformation leads to less
lnðSa =mR Þ variation in the fragility curves. Besides, no obvious impact from
¼Φ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a C
¼Φ
: 1 β2 þ β2 þ β2 ; βR
b DjIM C M

ð13Þ
Building performance level
where

1 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi Extensive damage
mR ¼ ½mC = expðaÞ1=b ; β 2DjIM þ β 2C þ β 2M
Complete damage
Moderate damage

βR ¼ ð14Þ
Slight damage

6
3-story buildings 5-story buildings 8-story buildings 10-story buildings
5

4 SD Frequent Earthquake
MD
mR (g)

ED
63.2% in 50 year hazard
3
CD

2 Design Basic Earthquake

63.2% in 50 year hazard
1

0 Rare Earthquake
-PC -LC MC -HC -PC -LC MC -HC -PC -LC MC HC -PC LC MC HC 2% in 50 year hazard
F-3 F-3 F-3- F-3 F-5 F-5 F-5- F-5 F-8 F-8 F-8- F-8- F-10 F-10- -10- -10-
F F

Fig. 10. Fragility medians mR of reference buildings Fig. 12. Performance objectives in GB50011-2010

© ASCE 04017075-9 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1

 Table 4. Spectral Intensities Associated with the FE, DBE, and MCE in a probabilistic manner of requiring the LS probabilities at
Hazards for the Reference Buildings SD, MD, and ED less than 30% conditioned on the Sa intensities
Reference buildings Sa;FE =g Sa;DBE =g Sa;RE =g corresponding to FE, DBE, and RE, respectively. The criterion de-
fined by the LS probabilities less than 30% has been used by Jeong
F-3-PC 0.02 0.06 0.13
F-3-LC 0.05 0.15 0.33
et al. (2012) for an accepted performance of the life safety perfor-
F-3-MC 0.11 0.32 0.64 mance level. Table 4 gives the Sa intensities depicting the hazard
F-3-HC 0.17 0.47 0.85 levels of FE, DBE, and RE in terms of Sa;FE , Sa;DBE , and Sa;RE ,
F-5-PC 0.02 0.04 0.10 respectively. They are determined from the seismic design response
F-5-LC 0.03 0.10 0.21 spectrum (Fig. 1), with the αmax values defined according to
F-5-MC 0.08 0.22 0.44 Table 1. For the buildings with the same height, the one considering
F-5-HC 0.12 0.33 0.59 a higher level of seismic design has shorter periods and show
F-8-PC 0.01 0.03 0.08 greater Sa values corresponding to the FE, DBE, and RE hazard
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

F-8-LC 0.03 0.07 0.16 levels.

F-8-MC 0.05 0.15 0.30
Fig. 13 shows the LS probabilities for the reference buildings at
F-8-HC 0.10 0.27 0.48
F-10-PC 0.01 0.03 0.07
the ordinates of Sa;FE , Sa;DBE , and Sa;RE . Almost all the buildings
F-10-LC 0.02 0.06 0.13 show satisfactory performance conditioned on the DBE and RE
F-10-MC 0.04 0.12 0.25 hazards with the accepted probabilities less than 30% for the
F-10-HC 0.08 0.23 0.40 MD and ED performance levels, respectively. Nevertheless, the
safety objective associated with the FE hazard cannot be satisfac-
torily met because the MC and HC buildings have the LS proba-
bilities for the SD performance level far beyond 30%. Besides, the
the building height is observed on β R . The values of β R for the 8- and 10-story buildings using the LC seismic design level exhibit
reference buildings range between approximately 0.4 and 0.6. an unfavorable performance when subjected to the FE hazard as the
corresponding LS probabilities for the SD performance level are
slightly greater than 30%.
Performance Evaluation With the promotion of seismic design level, an apparent increas-
ing trend is observed in the LS probabilities corresponding to the
The performance objectives implicit in GB50011-2010 are illus- same LS (Fig. 13). This result does not imply that buildings with a
trated in Fig. 12 according to the basic requirements of damage high seismic design level perform worse than buildings designed
limitation, reparability, and no collapse associated with the FE, for a low seismic code level. It can be explained by the fact that
DBE and RE hazards, respectively. For a fragility-based perfor- the enhancement of structural resistance caused by the increase
mance evaluation, these performance requirements are specified of seismic design level is exceeded by the simultaneous increase

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

F-3-PC F-5-PC F-8-PC F-10-PC
0.8 F-3-LC 0.8 F-5-LC 0.8 F-8-LC 0.8 F-10-LC
Probability

Probability

Probability
Probability

F-3-MC F-5-MC F-8-MC F-10-MC

0.6 F-3-HC 0.6 F-5-HC 0.6 F-8-HC 0.6 F-10-HC

0.4 Probability = 30% 0.4 Probability = 30% 0.4 0.4 Probability = 30%
Probability = 30%
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SD MD ED CD SD MD ED SD MD ED CD SD MD ED CD
(a)
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
F-3-PC F-5-PC F-8-PC F-10-PC
0.8 F-3-LC 0.8 F-5-LC 0.8 F-8-LC 0.8 F-10-LC
Probability

Probability

Probability

Probability

F-3-MC F-5-MC F-8-MC F-10-MC

0.6 F-3-HC 0.6 F-5-HC 0.6 F-8-HC 0.6 F-10-HC

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Probability = 30%

Probability = 30% Probability = 30% Probability = 30%
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SD MD ED CD SD MD ED CD SD MD ED CD SD MD ED CD
(b)
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
F-3-PC F-5-PC F-8-PC F-10-PC
0.8 F-3-LC 0.8 F-5-LC 0.8 F-8-LC 0.8 F-10-LC
Probability

Probability
Probability

Probability

F-3-MC F-5-MC F-8-MC F-10-MC

0.6 F-3-HC 0.6 F-5-HC 0.6 F-8-HC 0.6 F-10-HC

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Probability = 30% Probability = 30% Probability = 30% Probability = 30%
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SD MD ED CD SD MD ED CD SD MD ED CD SD MD ED CD
(c)

Fig. 13. Failure probabilities: (a) at Sa;FE ; (b) at Sa;DBE ; (c) at Sa;RE

© ASCE 04017075-10 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1

 1.0

Probability
F-5-PC corresponding LS probabilities are less than 30%, the performance
is marked as pass, and otherwise marked as fail, as shown in
F-5-LC
Table 5. It is clear that the damage limitation requirement cannot
be satisfied when the buildings suffer the FE intensities associated
F-5-MC with the seismic hazard levels higher than they were designed for.

decreased
F-5-HC
The DBE intensities associated with the HC seismic level can lead
to the unacceptable MD LS probabilities greater than 30% for the
increased

41.7%
31.8% PC and LC buildings, whereas the resultant probabilities for the
MC buildings stay less than 30%. Conditioned on the RE inten-
13.9% sities associated with the HC level, only the 3- and 5-story PC
2.1%
buildings cannot achieve the satisfactory performance objective,
whereas the other buildings show reliable safety margins.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.10g < 0.21g < 0.44g < 0.59g Sa /g

increased

Fig. 14. Increasing LS probability with increasing seismic design level Conclusions

The seismic performance of 16 low-rise to midrise RC frame

of the attracted seismic forces. Taking the fragility curves of 5-story
buildings for the MD performance level as the example (Fig. 14),
it is clear that fragility decreases with the increase of seismic design
level. Despite all this, the LS probabilities at RE are increased for
F-5-PC, F-5-LC, F-5-MC, and F-5-HC as 2.1, 13.9, 31.8, and
41.7%, respectively, because the corresponding Sa;RE intensities
are greatly raised as 0.10, 0.21, 0.44, and 0.55 g, respectively.
The increments of the structural resistance and the attracted seismic
action are compared by the ratio of mR to Sa;RE . The values of mR
corresponding to the MD performance level are 0.30, 0.38, 0.56,
and 0.65 g with a clear increase for F-5-PC, F-5-LC, F-5-MC,
and F-5-HC, respectively; however, the corresponding measuring
ratios are calculated as 3.0, 1.8, 1.27, and 1.10, respectively, with
a downward trend.
The safety of the buildings when they are subjected to the seis-
mic hazards beyond the design consideration is also examined.
In particular, the PC buildings will experience each of the seismic
actions with respect to the design levels of LC, MC, and HC; the
performance of the LC buildings will be tested by the seismic ac-
tions associated with the design levels of MC and HC; whereas the
safety of the MC buildings will only be examined by the seismic
actions related to the HC design level. The aforementioned prob-
abilistic criteria are still adopted to check whether the buildings
can withstand the seismic actions beyond the design level while
still satisfying the performance requirements. For instance, given
a PC building, its performance will be checked by examining
the LS probabilities for the SD, MD, and ED performance levels
under the FE, DBE, and RE intensities associated with each of the
seismic design levels as LC, MC, and HC, respectively. If the
moment-resisting buildings designed to satisfy current Chinese co-
des were evaluated with analytically derived fragility relationships
by using 100 real ground-motion records. The seismic perfor-
mances of the reference buildings were compared to investigate
the impact of seismic design level on structural safety. The obser-
vations and conclusions of the study were summarized as follows:
1. The promotion of seismic design level led to a decrease in fra-
gility. It enhanced the fragility medians and reduced the fragility
dispersions. The increments of fragility medians were larger for
the low-rise than for the midrise buildings. This result implies
the considerable effect of the structural height on the fragility
medians. Nevertheless, the structural height seemed to have
no clear effect on fragility dispersions that ranges between ap-
proximately 0.4 and 0.6. The fragility dispersions decreased be-
cause buildings designed for higher seismic levels are naturally
of greater global stiffness and deform less under seismic actions.
Less inelastic deformation results in less variation in the fragility
curves.
2. The reference buildings showed satisfactory performance to
meet the requirements of reparability and no collapse associated
with DBE (10% in 50-year hazard) and RE (2–3% in 50-year
hazard), respectively. However, the damage limitation perfor-
mance objective referring to FE (63.2% in 50-year hazard)
was not satisfactorily achieved by the buildings designed for
the MC and HC levels.
3. The limit-state probabilities of the building at the corresponding
reference earthquakes were increased with the promotion of
seismic design level. This result should not be interpreted as that
the building designed for a high level of seismic design performs
worse than its lower-design-level counterpart. It could be

Table 5. Performance Check Results of the Reference Buildings When They Are Subjected to Earthquake Levels beyond the Design Consideration
Earthquake hazard level and seismic design level
Reference
buildings FE-LC DBE-LC RE-LC FE-MC DBE-MC RE-MC FE-HC DBE-HC RE-HC
F-3-PC Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail
F-3-LC — — — Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass
F-3-MC — — — — — — Fail Pass Pass
F-5-PC Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail
F-5-LC — — — Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass
F-5-MC — — — — — — Fail Pass Pass
F-8-PC Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass
F-8-LC — — — Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass
F-8-MC — — — — — — Fail Pass Pass
F-10-PC Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass
F-10-LC — — — Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass
F-10-MC — — — — — — Fail Pass Pass

© ASCE 04017075-11 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1

 because the enhancement of the structural resistance caused
by the promotion of seismic design level was exceeded by the
simultaneous increase of the attracted seismic force.
4. The requirement of damage limitation was not met when the
buildings suffered the seismic actions beyond the design con-
sideration. The buildings designed to the PC and LC levels were
found to be unable to achieve the satisfactory performance ob-
jective of reparability under the DBE intensities with respect to
the HC design level. The buildings showed reliable safety mar-
gins against the RE intensities at higher seismic design levels,
except for the cases of 3- and 5-story PC buildings subjected to
the HC-related RE. These results imply that the current Chinese
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
seismic design code is relatively conservative probably because
of the lack of specific nonlinear modification factors applied in
GB50011-2010. Therefore, it is possible to improve the Chinese
code by accounting for larger anticipated nonlinear behavior in
the definition of seismic design force.
These conclusions are only valid for the low-rise to midrise RC
moment-resisting frame buildings in China. Further investigations
of the effect of seismic design level on structural performance dur-
ing earthquakes for other frame configurations and other building
types should be conducted to derive more solid and generic con-
clusions. Moreover, although 100 real ground motions were used in
this study, it may be not sufficient for probabilistic performance
analysis. Therefore, similar studies using a larger set of ground mo-
tions are also required and valuable.
Acknowledgments
The financial support received from National Science Foundation
of China (Grant Nos. 51408155 and 51378162), China Postdoctor-
al Science Foundation (2014M551251), and Heilongjiang Postdoc-
toral Science Foundation (LBH-Z14114) are gratefully appreciated.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2008). “Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-08, Farmington Hills, MI.
Ancheta, T. D., et al. (2013). “PEER NGA-West2 database.” PEER Rep.
2013/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
ASCE. (2007). “Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings.” ASCE/SEI41-
06, Reston, VA.
ASCE. (2010). “Minimum design loads for building and other structures.”
ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.
Calvi, G. M., Pinho, R., Magenes, G., Bommer, J. J., Restrepo-Vélez, L. F.,
and Crowley, H. (2006). “Development of seismic vulnerability
assessment methodologies over the past 30 years.” ISET J. Earthquake
Technol., 43(3), 75–104.
Celik, O. C., and Ellingwood, B. R. (2010). “Seismic fragilities for
non-ductile reinforced concrete frames—Role of aleatory and epistemic
uncertainties.” Struct. Saf., 32(1), 1–12.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2003). “Design of struc-
tures for earthquake resistance. 1: General rules, seismic actions and
rules for buildings.” Eurocode 8, Brussels, Belgium.
Cornell, C. A., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R. O., and Foutch, D. A. (2002).
“Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management
agency steel moment frame guidelines.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526), 526–533.
Duan, H. J, and Hueste, M. B. D. (2012). “Seismic performance of a
reinforced concrete frame buildings in China.” Earthquake Eng.,
41, 77–89.
Dumova-Jovanoska, E. (2000). “Fragility curves for reinforced concrete
structures in Skopje (Macedonia) region.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Eng., 19(6), 455–466.
© ASCE 04017075-12
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1
Ellingwood, B. R., Celik, O. C., and Kinali, K. (2007). “Fragility assess-
ment of building structural systems in mid-America.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn., 36(13), 1935–1952.
Erberik, M. A. (2008). “Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise
and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey.” Eng. Struct., 30(5), 1360–1374.
Erberik, M. A., and Elnashai, A. S. (2004). “Fragility analysis of flat-slab
structures.” Eng. Struct., 26(7), 937–948.
Fardis, M. N., Papailia, A., and Tsionis, G. (2012). “Seismic fragility of RC
framed and wall-frame buildings designed to the EN-Eurocodes.” Bull.
Earthquake Eng., 10(6), 1767–1793.
Howary, H. A. E., and Mehanny, S. S. F. (2011). “Seismic vulnerability
evaluation of RC moment frame buildings in moderate seismic zones.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 40(2), 215–235.
Hueste, M. B. D., and Bai, J. W. (2007). “Seismic retrofit of a reinforced
concrete flat-slab structure. II: Seismic fragility analysis.” Eng. Struct.,
29(6), 1178–1188.
Jalayer, F., and Cornell, C. A. (2009). “Alternative non-linear demand
estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 38(8), 951–972.
Jeong, S.-H., Mwafy, A. M., and Elnashai, A. S. (2012). “Probabilistic
seismic performance assessment of code-compliant multi-story RC
buildings.” Eng. Struct., 34, 527–537.
Ji, J., Elnashai, A. S., and Kuchma, D. A. (2007). “Seismic fragility rela-
tionships of reinforced concrete high-rise buildings.” Struct. Des. Tall
Special Build., 18(3), 259–277.
Kent, D. C., and Park, R. (1971). “Flexural members with confined
concrete.” J. Struct. Div., 97(7), 1969–1990.
Kircil, M. S., and Polat, Z. (2006). “Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C frame
buildings.” Eng. Struct., 28(9), 1335–1345.
Kwon, O. S., and Elnashai, A. (2006). “The effect of material and ground
motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure.”
Eng. Struct., 28(2), 289–303.
Lee, T. H., and Mosalam, K. M. (2005). “Seismic demand sensitivity of
reinforced concrete shear-wall building using FOSM method.” Earth-
quake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 34(14), 1719–1736.
Lu, D. G., Yu, X. H., Jia, M. M., and Wang, G. Y. (2014). “Seismic risk
assessment of a RC frame designed according to Chinese codes.” Struct.
Infrastruct. Eng., 10(10), 1295–1310.
Mackie, K. R., and Stojadinovic, B. (2005). “Comparison of incremental
dynamic, cloud and stripe methods for computing probabilistic seismic
demand models.” Proc., 2005 Structures Congress, Metropolis and-
Beyond, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–11.
Mander, J. B, Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress-
strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804), 1804–1826.
Medina, R., and Krawinkler, H. (2003). “Seismic demands for non-
deteriorating frame structures and their dependence on ground mo-
tions.” PEER Rep. 2003/15, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Berkeley, CA.
Menegotto, M., and Pinto, P. E. (1973). “Method of analysis of cyclically
loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic
behavior of elements under normal force and bending.” Proc., Symp. on
Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by
Well-Defined Repeated Loads, IABSE, Lisbon, Portugal, 15–22.
National Standard of the People’s Republic of China. (2010a). “Code
for design of concrete structures.” GB50010-2010, China Architecture
and Building, Beijing.
National Standard of the People’s Republic of China. (2010b). “Code for
seismic design of building.” GB50011-2010, China Architecture and
Building, Beijing.
National Standard of the People’s Republic of China. (2015). “Chinese
seismic design maps.” GB18306-2015, China Architecture and
Building, Beijing.
NIBS (National Institute of Building Sciences). (2004). “Hazus-MH tech-
nical manual.” Chapter 5, Direct physical damage—General building
stock, FEMA, Washington, DC.
OpenSees [Computer software]. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Ozer, A. Y. B., and Erberik, M. A. (2008). “Vulnerability of Turkish low-
rise and mid-rise reinforced concrete frame structures.” J. Earthquake
Eng., 12(S2), 2–11.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Padgett, J. E., and DesRoches, R. (2007). “Sensitivity of seismic response
and fragility to parameter uncertainty.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2007)133:12(1710), 1710–1718.
Panagiotakos, T. B., and Fardis, M. N. (2001). “Deformations of reinforced
concrete members at yielding and ultimate.” Struct. J., 98(2), 135–148.
Ramamoorthy, S. K., Gardoni, P., and Bracci, J. M. (2006). “Probabilistic
demand models and fragility curves for reinforced concrete
frames.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:10(1563),
1563–1572.
Ramamoorthy, S. K., Gardoni, P., and Bracci, J. M. (2008). “Seismic
fragility and confidence bounds for gravity load designed reinforced
concrete frames of varying height.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2008)134:4(639), 639–650.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L. (2006). “Plastic hinge integration methods
for force-based beam-column elements.” ASCE J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:2(244), 244–252.
Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzurro, P., and Carballo, J. E. (1998). “Earth-
quakes, records, and nonlinear responses.” Earthquake Spectra., 14(3),
469–500.
Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2002). “Incremental dynamic analy-
sis.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 491–514.
Wen, Y. K., Ellingwood, B. R., and Bracci, J. M. (2004). “Vulnerability
function framework for consequence-based engineering.” Technical
Rep. No. DS-4, Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE), Univ. of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
Wu, D., Tesfamarism, S., Stiemer, S. F., and Qin, D. (2012). “Seismic fra-

Rossetto, T., and Elnashai, A. S. (2003). “Derivation of vulnerability func- gility assessment of RC frame structure designed according to modern
tions for European-type RC structures based on observational data.” Chinese code for seismic design of buildings.” Earthquake Eng. Eng.
Eng. Struct., 25(10), 1241–1263. Vibr., 11(3), 331–342.

© ASCE 04017075-13 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2017, 31(5): -1--1