Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Case study

Seismic risk analysis of multistory reinforced concrete

structures in Saudi Arabia
Yasser E. Ibrahim1
Engineering Management Department, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, 11866, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: In this research, analytical fragility curves for typical mid-rise plane reinforced concrete
Received 16 June 2018 moment-resisting frames in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, KSA, which is considered low-
Received in revised form 11 August 2018 seismicity area, are presented. The fragility curves are developed for 12-story reinforced
Accepted 13 August 2018
concrete structure designed according to Saudi Building Code under dead, live and seismic
loads. Three cities with different seismic intensities; Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf were
Keywords: selected to cover various values of mapped spectral accelerations in KSA. The 0.2-second
Fragility curves
spectral accelerations range from 0.21 g to 0.66 g while the 1.0-second spectral
IDA
Performance-based design
accelerations range from 0.061 g to 0.23 g. Incremental Dynamic Analysis, IDA, was
Building codes performed under twelve ground motions using SeismoStruct. Five performance levels;
Seismic risk analysis Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Damage Control, Life Safety and Collapse Prevention,
which define different possible damage states of a building after an earthquake, were
considered and monitored in the analysis. Based on the results of the IDA and statistical
analysis, the probability of reaching or exceeding a specific damage state was calculated for
each structural model in the three cities. The results were fitted and the fragility curves
were developed and presented.
© 2018 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Performance-based design concept is applied or under considerations in many building codes all over the world in order
to provide a comprehensible and quantitative definition for expected structural damage from probable earthquakes.
Performance-based earthquake engineering aims to satisfy both the owners and users of structures by considering their
design, assessment and construction. The structural engineer and the owner of a structure can select different desired
structural performance levels when subjected to potential earthquakes with different seismic intensities. Performanc-based
design leads to the ability of the well-prediction of these performance levels with sufficient confidence. The selection of
these performance levels depend on many parameters such as the use and importance of the structure and its life-sycle. The
performance level can be defined by the maximum desired extent of damage to a structure under specific earthquake design
level [1,2,30,3].
Performance levels can be classified as structural and nonstructural levels. These levels are categorized according to [4,2]
as following:

Operational (OP): The building is immediately suitable for normal use with minimal or no damage to the structural and
nonstructural components.

1
On leave from Structural Engineering Department, Zagazig University, Egypt.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00192
2214-5095/© 2018 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
2 Y.E. Ibrahim / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00192

Immediate Occupancy (IC): The building experiences minimal or no damage to the structural elements and only minor
damage to the nonstructural components. Immediate occupancy may be possible. However, some clean-up, repair, and
restoration of service utilities may be necessary before the building can function as before earthquake.

Life Safety (LS): The structural and nonstructural components are subjected to extensive damage and are in need of repairs
before re-occupancy. Repair is possible but may be economically impractical.

Collapse Prevention (CP): The structural collapse is prevented with no consideration of nonstructural vulnerabilities. The
building may create a significant hazard to life safety and be considered as a complete economic loss.

In order to estimate expected structural response and damage during an earthquake, Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)
method was introduced through performance-based earthquake engineering. IDA provides quantification of a structural
response of a structure, whether it is a building, bridge or others, under ground motions with a wide range of intensities. IDA
curves depict the relationship between the maximum interstory drift ratio and the seismic intensity, which can be
represented by different ground motion parameters such as spectral acceleration, spectral displacement or peak ground
acceleration [3]. IDA curves were developed by many researchers for different types of structures [5–9]. The quantification of
structural and nonstructural damage obtained through IDA can be used to estimate the expected life and financial losses,
which are important for the designers and owner of the structure.
Although there is no agreement about their exact relationship, the desired performance levels are commonly specified in
terms of interstory drift ratios. Typical values of interstory drift ratios for the corresponding performance levels were
provided by FEMA 356 for different structural systems. Considering reinforced concrete frames, IO, LS and CP performance
levels are achieved at corresponding interstory drift ratios of 1%, 2% and 4%, respectively.
For different structural systems rather than that with masonry shear walls, Xue et al. [10] suggested values of maximum
interstory drift ratio for each performance level as tabulated in Table 1. Compared to FEMA 356 values, interstory drift ratios
are the same for IO and LS levels. Considering CP level, FEMA 356 estimated the corresponding interstory drift value is 4%
while Xue et al. were conservative and recommended using 2.5%. The Damage Control (DC) level is an intermediate level
between IO and LS that lies in the Damage Control Range specified by FEMA 356. Accordingly the maximum interstory drift
ratio of 1.5% was suggested by Xue et al. for this performance level.
IDA can be used in developing analytical fragility curves, which are useful tools in estimating the extent of probable
damage. These curves provide the probability of attaining or exceeding specific damage state considering different
intensities of earthquakes. Fragility curves are used in estimating the losses in lives and economic losses under a ground
motion with certain seismic intensity. Also, they can be used in retrofitting decisions and disaster response planning. Many
researchers have developed fragility curves for different types of structures such as multistory reinforced concrete buildings
[7,11,12], steel frames [6], bridges [13–15] and facades [16].
Besides being used in the assessment of structural response under earthquakes, fragility curves were used in the
assessment of the effectiveness of different retrofitting techniques of multistory structures [17,18]. Williams et al. [19] used
fragility curves for the decision-making process for two-story RC buildings in Memphis, Tennessee and San Francisco,
California considering IO, LS, and CP performance levels.
In this research, analytical fragility curves are developed for 12-story moment-resisting reinforced concrete frames,
designed according to Saudi Building Code in different seismic regions in KSA. With the aid of previously developed fragility
curves for typical 4-story and 8-story moment-resisting reinforced concrete frames for residential buildings in KSA [7], the
fragility curves are extended to cover a range from 4-story to 12-story structures considering two performance levels; OP and
CP in Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf. Considering KSA, the seismic risk is not high compared to other high seismicity areas. No
specific values of interstory drift ratios were suggested by the Saudi Building Code for desired performance levels.
Researchers used similar values of interstory drift ratios suggested by Xue et al. to define performance levels of structures
designed according to Saudi Building Code [7] because the definition of performance level, which depends on the desired
damage status of a building after a specific earthquake, is not affected by the seismic risk of the location. Accordingly, the
values suggested by Xue et al. are used in this research.

2. Structural model

Most of structures located in KSA are low to medium rise buildings due to the vast area of the kingdom. Reinforced
concrete structures are the most common structures in the kingdom. The structures considered in this research are 12-story
moment-resisting reinforced concrete frames. The structures are designed according to the Saudi Building Code considering

Table 1
Maximum interstory drift ratios for different performance levels [10].

Performance Level OP IO DC LS CP
Maximum interstory drift ratio 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
 Y.E. Ibrahim / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00192 3

Fig. 1. Structural models.

Table 2
Model Design.

City Beams Columns

Ext. Int.
Abha B2 for 1st floor C1 C2
B1 for the rest
Jazan B2 from 1st to 7th floor C1 C2
B1 for the rest
Al-Sharaf B2 from 1st to 10th floor C2 C3
B1 for the rest

Table 3
Cross section of beams and columns.

Beams Columns

Model B1 B2 C1 C2 C3
Dimensions (cm) 25  50 25  60 30  30 30  50 30  70
Reinforcement (mm) 4 # 16 6 # 16 8 # 14 10 # 16 14 # 18

Table 4
Details of ground motions.

No. Ground Motion Station PGA Year Duration

1 Artificial From SeismoStruct 0.436 g – 15 s
2 ChiChi Unknown, Taiwan 0.808 g 1999 40 s
3 Loma Prieta Corralitos recording station, USA 0.799 g 1989 8.5 s
4 Loma Prieta Emeryville, USA 0.25 g 1989 21 s
5 Friuli Unknown, Italy 0.479g 1976 20 s
6 Hollister City Hall, USA 0.12 g 1974 15 s
7 Kocaeli Sakaria, Turkey 0.628 g 1999 20 s
8 Kern County Taft Lincoln School Tunnel, USA 0.179 g 1952 27 s
9 San Fernand 8244 Orion Blvd., USA 0.134 g 1971 30 s
10 Imperial Valley EL Centro, USA 0.349g 1940 27 s
11 Northridge Arleta and Nordhoff Fire Station, USA 0.344 g 1994 30 s
12 Parkfield Cholame, Shandon, USA 0.275 g 1966 26 s

the seismic factors of three cities; Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf. The structures are 3-bay with 5-m bay width. The height of the
first story is 5 m, while the height of the rest of the floors is 3 m each (Fig. 1). The frames are 4 m apart. The compressive
strength of concrete is 300 Kg/cm2, while the yielding stress of reinforcing steel is 3600 Kg/cm2. The 0.2-second spectral
accelerations, SS, are 0.21 g, 0.435 g and 0.66 g, while the 1.0-second spectral accelerations, S1, are 0.061 g, 0.124 g and 0.23 g
for Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf cities, respectively. The soil class was assumed D, which is stiff soil with shear wave velocity, VS,
ranging from 180 to 370 m/s [20]. The structures are classified as low hazard buildings, with importance factor I = 1. For
intermediate moment-resisting frames, the seismic response modification coefficient, R, is taken equal to 4 [20]. The lateral
4 Y.E. Ibrahim / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00192

Fig. 2. IDA Curves.

seismic forces affecting on structures were calculated using the equivalent lateral force. The structures were designed
according to the Saudi Building Code [20] under the effect of dead, live and seismic loads. Tables 2 and 3 show the
arrangement, cross sections and reinforcement of these beams and columns models.
During the IDA using SeismoStruct [21], the concrete was modeled using a uniaxial constant confinement concrete model
initially presented by Madas [22]. The confinement effects provided by the lateral transverse reinforcement are included
through the model introduced by Mander et al. [23], which assumed constant confining pressure throughout the entire
stress-strain range.The reinforcing bars were modeled using a uniaxial bilinear stress-strain model with kinematic strain
hardening. The elastic range remains constant throughout the various loading stages, and the kinematic hardening rule for
the yield surface is assumed as a linear function of the increment of plastic strain.

3. IDA

In order to conduct IDA, a proper set of ground motions is required. A minimum of seven ground motions should be used
in order to obtain appropriate and reliable results that depict the structural response under different ground motions
[24,29,25]. Ten to twelve ground motions should be used in conducting IDA and developing fragility curves to obtain good
estimation of seismic demand for mid-rise buildings [5,26,27]. Selected ground motions may be either real records of
historic earthquakes, which are preferred because of the inclusion of the characteristics of ground motions such as
amplitude, frequency, duration, energy content, number of cycles and phase [27] or artificial ones. Since there were no
ground motions recorded in the past in KSA, twelve records of ground motions were selected to perform the nonlinear time
history analysis of the chosen structures. The selected ground motions are one artificial and eleven real records of historic
ground motions. These records are obtained from the library of SeismoStruct software. Table 4 shows the characteristics of
these ground motions. SeismoStruct is used to perform IDA on the 12-story structural models in three cities under the
selected ground motions. Nonlinear time history analyses were performed under each ground motion, while scaling the peak
ground acceleration, PGA, of the selected ground motion incrementally up to 0.6 g with increment of 0.05 g or until structural

Table 5
Parameters of the lognormal distributions for fitting data of 12-story structural model.

City OP IO DC LS CP

mln sln mln sln mln sln mln sln mln sln
Abha 2.03 0.83 1.31 0.95 0.94 0.91 0.63 0.88 0.40 0.85
Jazan 1.80 0.82 1.19 0.80 0.79 0.82 0.48 0.76 0.29 0.71
Al-Sharaf 1.36 0.60 0.71 0.68 0.36 0.74 0.06 0.78 0.21 0.75
 Y.E. Ibrahim / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00192 5

Fig. 3. Fragility curves for 12-story structure.

instability is obtained, which is estimated when the interstory drift ratio reaches 0.03, which exceeds the CP performance
level with a considerable value. For each ground motion used for a certain model, IDA curve is developed through plotting the
relationship between the maximum interstory drift ratio obtained in all floors and the corresponding PGA of the ground
motion under consideration. The IDA curves are shown in Fig. 2.
According to the results obtained, IDA curves show wide range of behavior with large variation in terms of reaching different
performance levels under certain value of PGA from record to record. Better seismic performance is obtained in structures
designed in Al-Sharaf city compared to Jazan and Abha. The structure designed in Al-Sharaf reach same performance level
compared to the structures designed in Abha and Jazan, but with higher PGA of the same ground motion. In other words, if all
structures are subjected to same ground motion with same PGA, structure in Al-Sharaf will experience better performance level.
In order to better assess the structural performance of these structures under different ground motions, five performance levels
were considered. The vertical gridlines on each curve at maximum interstory drift ratio of 0.005, 0.01, 0.015, 0.02 and 0.025
represent performance level of OP, IO, DC, LS and CP, respectively.
The 12-story structure is not operational (interstory drift ratio exceeds 0.005) under all records for PGA higher than 0.45 g for Abha
and 0.5 g for Jazan and Al-Sharaf. For weak ground motions with PGA up to 0.2 g, the structure is operational under 5, 6 and 8 out of 12
ground motions in Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf, respectively. Under all ground motions, the 12-stroy structures can be occupied
immediately for PGA less than 0.06 g, 0.06 g and 0.12 g for Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf, respectively. The structural collapse is prevented
(interstory drift ratio is less than 0.025) at 0.18 g, 0.20 g and 0.29 g for Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf, respectively, for all records. The
structures experienced structural instability (interstory drift ratio of 0.03) under ground motions with PGA less than 0.6 g under five
ground motions (No. 1, 2, 4, 7 and 9) in Abha and Jazan and under only two ground motions (No. 4 and 9) in Al-Sharaf.

4. Fragility curves

Fragility curves describe the probability of reaching or exceeding a specific damage state at certain ground motion
intensity. Different parameters can be used to represent the seismic intensity of the used ground motions such as spectral
acceleration, spectral displacement, peak ground velocity and PGA. For this study, PGA was selected to be the corresponding
parameter in developing the fragility curves.
First, the conditional probability is calculated by dividing the number of data points that reached or exceeded a particular
damage state by the number of data points of the whole sample [28]. In this study, the number of data points is 12, which is
the number of considered ground motions.
6 Y.E. Ibrahim / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00192

Table 6
Values from fitting.

Calculated values Values from fitting

Model 4-story 8-story 12-story 6-story 10-story

mln sln mln sln mln sln mln sln mln sln
Abha OP 2.33 0.73 1.62 0.78 2.03 0.83 1.83 0.76 1.67 0.80
DC 1.13 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.94 0.91 0.85 0.71 0.75 0.80
CP 0.59 0.69 0.34 0.68 0.40 0.85 0.43 0.66 0.33 0.74
Jazan OP 1.91 0.48 1.56 0.69 1.80 0.82 1.64 0.60 1.55 0.78
DC 0.84 0.59 0.55 0.70 0.79 0.82 0.63 0.64 0.60 0.76
CP 0.34 0.59 0.20 0.68 0.29 0.71 0.24 0.63 0.22 0.70
Al-Sharaf OP 1.41 0.32 1.16 0.58 1.36 0.60 1.23 0.49 1.20 0.63
DC 0.28 0.43 0.17 0.56 0.36 0.74 0.19 0.48 0.23 0.63
CP 0.14 0.42 0.15 0.52 0.21 0.75 0.13 0.45 0.17 0.62

Fig. 4. Set of fragility curves in different cities considering OP, DC and CP performance levels.
 Y.E. Ibrahim / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00192 7

Fig. 4. (Continued)

The conditional probability of a structure to reach or exceed a specific damage state, D, given the peak ground
acceleration, PGA, is defined by:
 
D lnðPGAÞ  mln
P ¼ Fð Þ ð1Þ
PGA s ln
where:
F is the standard normal cumulative distribution function; mln and s ln are the mean value and standard deviation of the
natural logarithm of PGA at which the building reach the threshold of a specific damage state or performance level, D.
Lognormal functions with two parameters (mln and s ln) were fitted using EasyFit software for different performance
levels; OP, IO, DC, LS and CP, in each city. The software uses the conditional probability values for each structural model
considering a specific performance level and generates the lognormal distribution function using mln and s ln. This results in
developing the fragility curves for the structural models under the selected ground motions considering five different
performance levels. The values of these parameters are tabulated in Table 5. More information about developing fragility
curves can be obtained from Ibrahim and El-Shami [7]. The whole set of fragility curves are shown in Fig. 3. From these
figures, the following observations are noticed:

(1) When exposed to weak ground motions with PGA = 0.2 g, the probability of reaching or exceeding the OP performance
level is about 70%, 59% and 34% Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf, respectively. However, the probability of reaching or exceeding
the CP level is about 8%, 4% and 0% Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf, respectively. Considering the DC level, the probability of
reaching or exceeding this performance level is 24% in Abha, 16% in Jazan and as low as 3% in Al-Sharaf.
(2) When exposed to relatively strong ground motions with PGA = 0.4 g, The probability of reaching or exceeding the OP
performance level is about 91%, 86% and 77% in Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf, respectively. The probability of reaching or
exceeding the CP level is about 27%, 19% and 7% in Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf, respectively. The probability of reaching or
exceeding the DC performance level is 92% in Abha, 85% in Jazan and as low as 23% in Al-Sharaf.

5. Extension of fragility curves

In order to develop fragility curves for structures with a wide range of number of stories, the results obtained in this
research are combined with the results obtained from previous research on similar structures in same cities but with
different number of stories; 4-story and 8-story [7]. The extended fragility curves are developed using median and standard
8 Y.E. Ibrahim / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00192

deviation values obtained from fitted curves. Fitting was based on a polynomial function from the second degree. The
polynomial equation for the lognormal function parameters (mln and s ln) has the following form:

Y = ax2 + bx + c (2)
where
Y is the parameter mln or s ln
a, b and c are the coefficients obtained from the fitting
x is the number of storys of the structural model.
The equation is applied twice for each performance level of the structural model to get the coefficients of the polynomial
equation for the parameter under consideration.
The values used in fitting for 4, 8 and 12-story structures along with the obtained values for 6 and 10-story structures in
different cities for OP, DC and CP performance levels are tabulated in Table 6. Extended fragility curves are shown in Fig. 4.

6. Summary and conclusions

(1) In this research, fragility curves for 12-story reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames are presented. The structural
models are designed according to the Saudi Building Code [20] for three cities; Abha, Jazan and Al-Sharaf, to cover wide
range of mapped spectral accelerations values in the kingdom. The 0.2-second spectral accelerations, SS, are 0.21 g,
0.435 g and 0.66 g, while the 1.0-second spectral accelerations, S1, are 0.061 g, 0.124 g and 0.23 g for Abha, Jazan and Al-
Sharaf cities, respectively. The compressive strength of concrete is 300 Kg/cm2, while the yielding stress of reinforcing
steel is 3600 Kg/cm2. The soil class was assumed D, which is stiff soil with shear wave velocity, VS, ranging from 180 to
370 m/s. The structures are classified as low hazard buildings, with importance factor I = 1. Different structural and
nonstructural performance levels are considered. These levels are Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Damage Control,
Life Safety and Collapse Prevention.
(2) IDA was conducted using SeismoStruct under twelve ground motions. IDA curves showed wide range of behavior with
large variation from record to record. Good seismic performance is obtained for different structural models under
different ground motions. Better seismic performance is obtained in structures designed in Al-Sharaf city compared to
Jazan and Abha for the 4-story and 8-story structures. The fragility curves were developed based on the results of IDA and
after specifying a value for interstory drift ratio corresponding to each performance level.
(3) The results obtained in this research are combined with the results obtained before for similar 4-story and 8-story
structures designed in the same cities to provide sets of analytical fragility curves for structures with 6-story and 10-story
structures considering OP, DC and CP performance levels. The final fragility curves of typical multistory framed structures
in Saudi Arabia with different number of floors ranging from 4-story to 12-story structures considering several
performance levels. The developed set of fragility curves provide clear picture of expected performance similar
structures designed according to Saudi Building Code when subjected to possible ground motions. This can help
structural engineers decide about their design in different Saudi cities with various seismic intensities and developers of
the national building code for possible development and modifications.

References

[1] SEAOC, Vision 2000, Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings San Francisco, (1995) .
[2] Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 2000 Washington DC.
[3] D. Vamvatsikos, C.A. Cornell, Incremental dynamic analysis, J. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31 (3) (2002) 491–514.
[4] Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA273, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings Washington DC, (1997) .
[5] S.M. Kircil, Z. Polat, Fragility analysis of mid-rise R/C frame buildings, Eng. Struct. 28 (9) (2006) 1335–1345.
[6] K. Kinali, B.R. Ellingwood, Seismic fragility assessment of steel frames for consequence-based engineering: a case study for Memphis, TN, Eng. Struct.
29 (6) (2007) 1115–1127.
[7] Y.E. Ibrahim, M.M. El-Shami, Seismic Fragility curves for mid-rise reinforced concrete frames in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, IES Part A: Civil Struct. Eng. 4
(4) (2011) 213–223.
[8] K. Kostinakis, A. Athanatopoulou, Incremental dynamic analysis applied to assessment of structure-specific earthquake IMs in 3D R/C buildings, Eng.
Struct. 125 (2016) 300–312.
[9] H. Masaeli, F. Khoshnoudian, S. Musician, Incremental dynamic analysis of nonlinear rocking soil-structure systems, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 104 (2018)
236–249.
[10] Q. Xue, C.W. Wu, C.C. Chen, K.C. Chen, The draft code for performance-based seismic design of buildings in Taiwan, Eng. Struct. 30 (2008) 1535–1547.
[11] F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby, Fragility curves for RC frames under multiple earthquakes, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 98 (2017) 222–234.
[12] D. Cardone, M. Rossino, G. Gesualdi, Estimating fragilitycurves of pre-70, RC frame buildings considering different performance limit states, Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. (2017), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.11.015 In press, corrected proof, Available online 19 January 2018.
[13] K. Ramanathan, J.E. Padgett, R. Des Roches, Temporal evolution of seismic fragility curves for concrete box-girder bridges in California, Eng. Struct. 97
(2015) 29–46.
[14] M. Fakharifar, G. Chen, A. Dalvand, A. Shamsabadi, Collapse vulnerability and fragility analysis of substandard RC bridges rehabilitated with different
repair jackets under post-mainshock cascading events, Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 9 (3) (2015) 345–367.
[15] A. Martínez, M.A. Hube, K.M. Rollins, Analytical fragility curves for non-skewed highway bridges in Chile, Eng. Struct. 141 (2017) 530–542.
[16] L. Giresini, C. Casapulla, R. Denysiuk, J. Matos, M. Sassu, Fragility curves for free and restrained rocking masonry façades in one-sided motion, Eng.
Struct. 164 (2018) 195–213.
 Y.E. Ibrahim / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00192 9

[17] A.E. Özel, E.M. Güneyisi, Effects of eccentric steel bracing systems on seismic fragility curves of mid-rise R/C buildings: a case study, Struct. Saf. 33 (1)
(2011) 82–95.
[18] Y.E. Ibrahim, Assessment of seismic retrofitting techniques of RC structures using fragility curves, Int. J. Struct. Civil Eng. Res. IJSCER 5 (3) (2016) 175–
182.
[19] R.J. Williams, P. Gardoni, J.M. Bracci, Decision analysis for seismic retrofit of structures, Struct. Saf. 31 (2009) 188–196.
[20] Saudi Building Code National Committee, Saudi Building Code: Loads and Forces Requirements, SBC 301, Riyadh, 2007.
[21] SeismoStruct Ver. 5.0.4, SeismoSoft, Earthquake Engineering Software Solutions Italy, (2010) . www.seismosoft.com).
[22] P. Madas, Advanced Modelling of Composite Frames Subjected to Earthquake Loading. PhD Thesis, Imperial College, University of London, London, UK,
1993.
[23] J.B. Mander, M.J.N. Priestley, R. Park, Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 114 (8) (1988) 1804–1826.
[24] UBC, Uniform Building Code, Structural engineering design provisions, International Conference of Building Officials vol. 2 (1997).
[25] J.J. Bommer, A.B. Acevedo, J. Douglas, The selection and scaling of real earthquake accelerograms for use in seismic design and assessment, Proceeding
of ACI International Conference on Seismic Bridge Design and Retrofit (2003).
[26] N. Shome, C.A. Cornell, Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear Structures. Ph.D Dissertation, Stanford, Stanford University, 1999.
[27] M. Rota, A. Penna, G. Magnes, A methodology for deriving analytical fragility curves for masonry buildings based on stochastic nonlinear analyses, Eng.
Struct. 32 (2010) 1312–1323.
[28] M. Shinozuka, F. Kim, T. Uzaua, T. Ueda, Statical Analysis of Fragility Curves. Technical Report MCEER-03-0002, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Southern California, 2003.
[29] ENV 1998-1, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance _ Part 1: General Rules: Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, (2005) .
[30] Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA349, FEMA/EERI, Action Plan for Performance -Based Seismic Design Washington DC, (2000) .