Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 1163–1178 | Cite as

Fragility curves for steel–concrete composite shear wall building with torsional irregularity

  • P. P. PhadnisEmail author
  • V. V. Karjinni
Original Paper


In this study, building model which is trapezoidal in plan with steel–concrete composite shear walls (SCCMSWs) is reduced to 1/4th scale in order to validate modal information and joint responses analytical results with AZALEE shake table under the scope of the SMART program. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is performed on numerical model, and the maximum inter-storey drift is determined as a response parameter for all simulations. Fourteen real ground motion records are used to study the ground motion variability. Further, seismic fragility curves are developed based on IDA results to assess uncertainties in hazard evaluation of structure. Damage probability matrices under various damage states obtained from fragility curves are compared for building as per pre-established damage indicators of SMART 2008 and HAZUS 2003 specifications. It is concluded that, SCCMSWs building structure considered in the study behaves well when subjected to severe earthquakes.


Steel–concrete composite shear wall Nonlinear modeling Incremental dynamic analysis Fragility curves Torsional irregularity 

List of symbols

P (≤ D)

Probability that a ground motion with intensity measure (IM = xi) will cause the structure to collapse


Standard normal cumulative distribution function (CDF)


Mean of natural logarithmic of IM


Standard deviation of natural logarithmic of IM (also referred to as the dispersion of IM)


Yield curvature


Shear length constant for symmetrical elements (1/2 of the total element length L)


Total section height


Mean diameter of the longitudinal bars in the affected section


Yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement steel [MPa]


Concrete compression strength [MPa]


av = 1 if shear cracking is expected to precede flexural yielding at the end section; otherwise av=0


Length of internal lever arm, taken equal to drd′ in beams, columns, or walls with barbelled or T-section, or to 0.8 h in walls with rectangular section [mm]


Depth to the tension reinforcement [mm]


Depth to the compression reinforcement [mm]


Ultimate curvature


Plastic hinge length [mm]


Shear capacity of steel shape in the composite member


Shear capacity of the RC portion in the composite member


Shear capacity of the reinforcement in the composite member


Area of steel web of encased steel section


Section width


Effective depth


Unconfined compressive strength


Axial load on the section


Concrete area


Area of transverse reinforcement


Yield strength of transverse reinforcement


Spacing of transverse reinforcement


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, I (corresponding author) declare that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. ACI 318. (2008). Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. Detroit: American Concrete Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Akansel, V.H., Yakut, A., & Gülkan P. (2012). Fragility of shear wall buildings with torsional irregularity. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa.Google Scholar
  3. ASCE/SEI 41-06. (2007). Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  4. ATC-40. (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings (vol-1). Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.Google Scholar
  5. Cinitha, A., Umesha, P.K., & Iyer N.R. (2012). Nonlinear static analysis to assess performance and vulnerability of code-conforming RC Buildings. WSEAS Transactions on App lied and Theoretical Mechanics 7(1).Google Scholar
  6. Crijanovschi, S., Richard, B., Chaudat, T., & Atanasiu, G.M. (2012). Preliminary numerical analysis of a reinforced concrete mock up: effects of thermal breakers and shaking table. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa.Google Scholar
  7. Dan, D., Fabin, A., & Stoian, V. (2011). Theoretical and experimental study on composite steel-concrete shear wall with vertical steel encased profiles. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier. Scholar
  8. Fabian, A., Daniel, D., Stoian, V., Demeter, I., Nagy-Gyorgy, T., & Floruţ, C. (2011). Comparative study concerning the seismic behavior of composite steel–concrete structure steel encased profiles. Proceedings Fib Symposium PRAGUE, Session 5-6: Composites and Hybrids, pp. 01-06.Google Scholar
  9. Fahjan, Y.M., Doran B., Akbs B., & Kubin, J. (2012). Pushover Analysis for Performance Based-Seismic Design of RC Frames with Shear Walls. 15 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa.Google Scholar
  10. Fahjan, Y.M., Kubin, J., & Tan, M.T. (2010). Non-linear analysis methods for RC buildings with shear walls. 14th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.Google Scholar
  11. FEMA 356. (2000). Prestandard and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Applied Technology Council for the Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. FEMA P695. (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance. Applied Technology Council, California.Google Scholar
  13. Gaikwad, P.S., & Tolani, K. (2015). Review paper on dynamic analysis of buildings. International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 5(2).Google Scholar
  14. IS 1893. (2016). Indian standard, criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures (part 1), general provisions and buildings. (Sixth Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  15. Lermitte, S. J., Chaudat, T., & Courtois, A. (2009). SMART2008 Project experimental tests of a reinforced concrete buildings subjected to torsion. 20th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 20Div. V), Espoo, Finland.Google Scholar
  16. Luco, N., & Cornell, C. A. (2002). Structure-specific, scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra, 23(2), 357–392. Scholar
  17. Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J., & Park, R. (1988a). Observed stress–strain behavior of confined concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1827–1849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., & Park, R. (1988b). Theoretical stress–strain model of confined concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1804–1826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mieses, L.A., Lopez, R.R., & Saffar, A. (2007). Development of fragility curves for medium-rise RC shear wall residential buildings in Puerto Rico. Association Argentina de Mecania Computational, 2712–2727.Google Scholar
  20. Nazirzadeh, S., Akansel, V.H., & Yakut, A. (2012). Numerical simulation of shaking table test of a RC shear wall structure with torsional irregularity. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  21. EC-8, Part 3. (1994–2003). European Committee for Standardization. Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures. Brussels.Google Scholar
  22. Patil, V.S., & Tande, S.N. (2018). Probabilistic verses Deterministic Method of Seismic Performance evaluation. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, Springer International publishing AG., Part of Springer Nature,
  23. Phadnis, P. P., Kulkarni, D. K., Kulkarni, A. B., & Karjinni, V. V. (2018). Performance of composite steel-concrete shear walls with encased vertical steel sections. The Indian Concrete Journal, 92(7), 74–81.Google Scholar
  24. Raju, R. K., Cinitha, A., & Iyer, N. R. (2012). Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings designed as per past code of practice. Indian Academy of Sciences, 37(Part 2), 281–297.Google Scholar
  25. Shakib H., & Pirizadeh, M. (2014). Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of setback buildings under bidirectional excitation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 140(2).Google Scholar
  26. Shome, N., & Cornell, C.A. (1999). Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Report no. RMS-35, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Standford University, Standford, California.Google Scholar
  27. Shome, N., & Cornell, C.A. (2000). Structural seismic demand analysis: Consideration of collapse. Proceedings of the 8th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, Paper No. 119, Norte Dame, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  28. SMART 2008 Project: Seismic Design and Best-estimate Methods Assessment for Reinforced Concrete Buildings Subjected to Torsion and Non-linear Effects Earthquake Blind Prediction Contest and Fragility AssessmentGoogle Scholar
  29. Stoian, V., Dan, D., & Fabian, A. (2011). Composite shear walls with encased profiles. New solution for buildings placed in seismic area. Acta Technica Napocensis Civil Engineering and Architecture, 54, 5–12.Google Scholar
  30. HAZUS®MH 2.1, Technical manual. (2003). Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology earthquake model. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., United StatesGoogle Scholar
  31. Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C.A. (2002a). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 491–514.Google Scholar
  32. Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C.A. (2002b). The Incremental Dynamic Analysis and It’s Application to Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering. 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper ref. 479.Google Scholar
  33. Verudo, C.M., Hube, M.A., Favier, P., & Saitua, F. (2017). Analytical fragility curves of high-rise reinforced concrete shear wall buildings. 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (pp. 1–11).Google Scholar
  34. Wen, Y.K., Ellingwood, B.R., & Bracci, J. (2004). Vulnerability function framework for consequence-based engineering, vol. DS-4, MAE Center Project, DS-4 Report.Google Scholar
  35. Weng, C. C., Yen, S. I., & Chen, C. C. (2001). Shear strength of concrete-encased composite structural members. Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(10), 1190–1197. (Paper No. 18653).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhao, Q., & Astanesh-Asl, A. (2007). Seismic behavior of composite shear wall systems and its application of smart structures technology. Steel Structures, 7, 69–75.Google Scholar
  37. PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center), NGA Database-

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of TechnologyShivaji UniversityKolhapurIndia
  2. 2.Kolhapur Institute of Technology’s College of Engineering (Shivaji University)KolhapurIndia

Personalised recommendations