A

PRESENTATION
ON
“FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF RCC BUILDING”

Presented by
Dinesh Sakhakarmi
(ME/076/03)
PRESENTATION CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVES

METHODOLOGY AND STEPS FOLLOWED

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

 INTRODUCTION
 Seismic fragility analysis is the comparison of seismic capacity and demand
and to estimate whether the seismic capacity is exceeded for a well-defined
performance level when the structural system is subjected to specified
levels of ground motion intensity.

 Fragility Curve is a Statistical tool representing the probability of exceeding

a given damage state (or performance) as a function of an engineering
demand parameter that represents the ground motion (preferably spectral
displacement at a given frequency)

 Simply, Fragility curve is a plot between earthquake intensity and damage

grade in terms of the conditional cumulative probability of reaching a
certain damage state.
Figure 1 :Seismic Fragility curve (Requiso Et. Al. 2013)
HAZUS-MH MR3
 For structural damage, given spectral displacement Sd, the
probability of being in or exceeding a damage state, ds is modeled as:

– Sd,ds is median value of spectral displacement at which building

reaches threshold of damage state, ds
– βds is standard deviation of natural logarithm of spectral displacement
of damage state,
– Φ is standard normal cumulative distribution function
 OBJECTIVES
GENERAL OBJECTIVES
 To develop seismic fragility curve of RCC building with seismic loading in terms of
PGA.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
Interpretation of structural vulnerability of RCC Building in terms of probability of
failure obtained from fragility curves for different values of PGA & all states of damage.
To assess seismic performance of building.
 METHODOLOGY
LITERATURE REVIEWS

DATA COLLECTION

MODELLING USING ETABS V 17.0.1

PUSHOVER AND TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

DEVELOPMENT OF FRAGILITY CURVE

RESULT AND CONCLUSIONS

 Steps for determination of Spectral Displacement
1. Time history analysis of selected building from past earthquake data
2. Select Target spectrum- Seismomatch 2022
3. Match time history data with target spectrum- Seismomatch 2022
4. Scaled to form different time history data- Excel
5. Determine Peak Displacement of structure from all time history-ETABS V
17.0.1
6. Plot graph of peak displacement and corresponding acceleration-Excel
7. Fit the curve of graph and find spectral displacement for required PGA-
Excel
1. Time History Data- KOBE
2. Target spectrum- Seismomatch 2022
3.Match time history data with target spectrum- Seismomatch 2022
Ground Motion Parameters for Matched Accelerograms
4. Scaled to form different time history data- Excel
• Scale 1 1g
• Scale 2 0.2g
• Scale 3 0.3g
• Scale 4 0.4g
• Scale 5 0.5g
• Scale 6 0.6g
• Scale 7 0.7g
• Scale 8 0.8g
• Scale 9 0.9g
 BUILDING SELECTION
• Building type : Residential Building
• Location : Sankhamul, Kathmandu
• Structural System : RC Moment Resisting frame
• Number of storey : 3 & Half storey
• Floor Height :9’-4’’
• Column : 12’’*12’’
• Beam :9”*14”
• Slab : 125 mm
• Waist slab = 175 mm
• Length : 10.36 m
• Width : 9.398m
• Wall :9” external wall and 4” partition wall
• Concrete Grade :M20
• Steel Grade :Fe 500
Figure 2 :Modelling of RCC Building
 STRUCTURAL MODEL & LOADING-ETABS V2017.0.1

• Beam, column as Line Element

• Slab as area element
• Dead Load as per IS 875 part I
• Live load as per IS 875 part II
• Earthquake Loading IS 1893:2016

Figure 3 : Live loads in Building

Time History Load Case In ETABS

...
5. Determine Peak Displacement of Structure from all Time
History-ETABS
Maximum Displacement From ETABS and Corresponding
Acceleration
Load Case/Combo Maximum displacement
  mm
0.1667g Max 7.63
1g Max 45.75
0.2g Max 9.15
0.3g Max 13.726
0.4g Max 18.3
0.5g Max 22.88
0.6g Max 27.45
0.7g Max 32.03
0.8g Max 36.6
0.9g Max 41.18
6. Plot graph of peak displacement and corresponding
acceleration-Excel

PGA VS DISPLACEMENT
50

45 f(x) = 45.7514501910525 x + 0.00103656558799514

R² = 0.999999976634991
40

35
Displacement
30
Series1

25 Linear (Series1)

20

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

PGA
7.Fit the curve of graph and find spectral displacement for required PGA-Excel
Spectral Displacement (mm),Sd = 45.75x + 0.001
PGA(g) Kobe (Sd)
0 0
0.05 2.28855
0.1 4.5761
0.15 6.86365
0.2 9.1512
0.25 11.43875
0.3 13.7263
0.35 16.01385
0.4 18.3014
0.45 20.58895
0.5 22.8765
0.55 25.16405
0.6 27.4516
0.65 29.73915
0.7 32.0267
0.75 34.31425
0.8 36.6018
0.85 38.88935
0.9 41.1769
43.46445
0.95
1
45.752

Table 1 : Spectral Displacment (Sd)

DAMAGE STATE-EMS-98
• Slight Damage:
– no structural damage, slight non structural damage
• Moderate Damage:
– slight structural damage, moderate non structural damage
• Substantial to heavy damage:
– moderate structural damage, heavy non structural damage
• Very heavy damage:
– heavy structural damage, very heavy non structural damage
• Destruction:
– very heavy structural damage
 HAZUS Damage Grade
Slight Structural Damage: Diagonal (sometimes horizontal) hairline cracks
on most infill walls; cracks at frame-infill interfaces.
Moderate Structural Damage: Most infill wall surfaces exhibit larger
diagonal or horizontal cracks; some walls exhibit crushing of brick around
beam-column connections. Diagonal shear cracks may be observed in
concrete beams or columns.
Extensive Structural Damage: Most infill walls exhibit large cracks; some
bricks may dislodge and fall; some infill walls may bulge out-of-plane; few
walls may fall partially or fully; few concrete columns or beams may fail in
shear resulting in partial collapse. Structure may exhibit permanent lateral
deformation.
Complete Structural Damage: Structure has collapsed or is in imminent
danger of collapse due to a combination of total failure of the infill walls
and nonductile failure of the concrete beams and columns.
Capacity displacement (Sc)
Four damage states are used as capacity of building (Giovinazzi et al.
2006)
• slight damage = 0.7dy
• Moderate damage = 1.5 dy
• Extensive damage = 0.5(dy+du)
• Complete damage = du
where, dy is yield displacement and du is ultimate displacement
From Pushover curve Figure 4 : Pushover Curve
Yield displacement (dy)= 23.53 mm
Ultimate displacement (du)= 60.35 mm
Four damage states are used as capacity of building (Glovinazzi et al. 2006)

• slight damage = 0.7dy = 16.471 mm

• Moderate damage = 1.5 dy = 35.295 mm
• Extensive damage = 0.5(dy + du) = 41.94mm
• Complete damage = du = 60.35 mm
   Capacity Displacement mm (Sc)
PGA(g) Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
0 0 0 0 0
0.05 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.1 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.15 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.2 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.25 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.3 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.35 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.4 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.45 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.5 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.55 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.6 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.65 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.7 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.75 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.8 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.85 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.9 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
0.95 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
1 16.471 35.295 41.94 60.35
 log normal distribution, Ln(Sd/Sc)
Kobe
Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
0 0 0 0
-3.0839 -4.2747 -4.544252 -5.11287893
-2.0012 -3.192 -3.461551 -4.03017788
-1.3678 -2.5586 -2.828126 -3.39675246
-0.9183 -2.1092 -2.37868 -2.94730614
-0.5697 -1.7605 -2.030052 -2.59867849
-0.2848 -1.4757 -1.745197 -2.31382382
-0.044 -1.2348 -1.504353 -2.07297965
0.16465 -1.0262 -1.295723 -1.86434904
0.34868 -0.8422 -1.111696 -1.68032254
0.5133 -0.6775 -0.947078 -1.51570432
0.66221 -0.5286 -0.798162 -1.36678837
0.79816 -0.3927 -0.662212 -1.23083827
0.92322 -0.2676 -0.537149 -1.10577592
1.03901 -0.1518 -0.42136 -0.98998597
1.14681 -0.044 -0.313561 -0.88218786
1.24765 0.05681 -0.212723 -0.78134926
1.34237 0.15153 -0.117999 -0.6866258
1.43168 0.24084 -0.028692 -0.59731801
1.51616 0.32532 0.055786 -0.51283998
1.5963 0.40546 0.13593 -0.432696
 Probability of failure
Kobe
Slight Moderate Extensive Complete
0 0 0 0
0.001021602 9.6E-06 2.7565E-06 1.6E-07
0.022686586 0.00071 0.00026854 2.8E-05
0.08569471 0.00525 0.00234107 0.00034
0.17922918 0.01747 0.00868738 0.0016
0.284447726 0.03916 0.02117562 0.00468
0.387889373 0.07002 0.04047526 0.01034
0.48246012 0.10845 0.06624522 0.01909
0.565390448 0.1524 0.09753554 0.03114
0.636334085 0.19985 0.13313442 0.04645
0.696127577 0.24903 0.17179955 0.0648
0.746082042 0.29853 0.21238826 0.08585
0.787611537 0.34728 0.25391774 0.10919
0.822054652 0.3945 0.29558218 0.13441
0.850600782 0.43966 0.33674629 0.16109
0.874270265 0.48244 0.37692708 0.18884
0.893920416 0.52265 0.41577158 0.2173
0.910262573 0.56022 0.45303408 0.24616
0.923882504 0.59516 0.48855529 0.27515
0.935260492 0.62753 0.52224404 0.30403
0.944789477 0.65743 0.55406186 0.33262
 1.00

0.90
Slight

Moderate
0.80
Extensive

Complete
0.70

0.60
Probability

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

PGA(g)
Figure 5 : Fragility Curve
 RESULT AND CONCLUSION
• Probability of Slightly damage of structure for PGA of 1g is 94.47%
• Probability of Moderate damage of structure PGA of 1g is 65.74%
• Probability of Extensive damage of structure PGA of 1g is 55.40%
• Probability of Complete damage of structure PGA of 1g is 33.26%

According to NBC:2020 cl.4.1.4 /Table 4-5 ,seismic zoning factor(Z) for Kathmandu is 0.35g
• Probability of Slightly damage of structure for PGA of 0.35g is 48.24%
• Probability of Moderate damage of structure PGA of 0.35g is 10.84%
• Probability of Extensive damage of structure PGA of 0.35g is 6.6%
• Probability of Complete damage of structure PGA of 0.35g is 1.9 %
THANK YOU