Fragility Curve Development for Assessing Midrise Steel Building with Buckling Resistant Braced System Having Vertical Irregularity

Document Type : Research Note


Tarbiat Modares University


In this paper, the fragility curves have been developed for assessing vertically irregular midrise steel building with Buckling Resistant Braced (BRB) system. The effect of different vertical irregularities of mass, stiffness and the concurrent variation of stiffness and strength was investigated in the seismic response of a ten-story steel building. The fragility curves of both the regular and irregular structures were developed through the incremental dynamic analysis and the effects of vertical irregularities were evaluated in the seismic performance of the structure. Fragility curves show that among all the vertical irregularities, variation in the mass has little effect on the probability exceedance of demand from capacity. Meanwhile, the concurrent variation of stiffness and strength shows a significant increase in the probability exceedance of demand from capacity, especially through the nonlinear phase of structural behavior, through the collapse prevention to the global instability limit states.


  1. Standard 2800 (2014) Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings-Code of Practice.
  2. Pirizadeh M. and Shakib, H. (2013) Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of non-geometric vertically irregular steel buildings. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 82, 88-98.
  3. Chintanapakdee, C. and Chopra, A.K. (2004) Seismic response of vertically irregular frames: response history and modal pushover analyses. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130, 1177-1185.
  4. Tremblay, R. and Poncet, L. (2005) Seismic performance of concentrically braced steel frames in multistory buildings with mass irregularity. Journal of Structural Engineering, 131, 1363-1375.
  5. Türker, T. and Bayraktar, A. (2011) Experimental and numerical investigation of brace configuration effects on steel structures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 67, 854-865.
  6. Mahmoudi, M. and Zaree, M. (2010) Evaluating response modification factors of concentrically braced steel frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66, 1196-1204.
  7. Alipour, M. and Aghakouchak, A. (2013) Numerical analysis of the nonlinear performance of concentrically braced frames under cyclic loading. International Journal of Steel Structures, 13, 401-419.
  8. Yoshino, T. and Karino, Y. (1971) 'Experimental study on shear wall with braces: Part 2'. In: Summaries of technical paper s of annua l meeting, 403-404.
  9. Chou, C.-C., Chen, Y.-C., Pham, D.-H., and Truong, V.-M. (2014) Steel braced frames with dual-core SCBs and sandwiched BRBs: Mechanics, modeling and seismic demands. Engineering Structures, 72, 26-40.
  10. Asgarian, B. and Shokrgozar, H.R. (2009) BRBF response modification factor. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65, 290-298.
  11. Jiang, Z., Guo, Y., Zhang, B., and Zhang, X. (2015) Influence of design parameters of buckling-restrained brace on its performance. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 105, 139-150.
  12. Atlayan, O. and Charney, F.A. (2014) Hybrid buckling-restrained braced frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 96, 95-105.
  13. Tang, Y. and Zhang, J. (2011) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of a slender RC shear wall considering soil-structure interaction effects. Engineering Structures, 33, 218-229.
  14. Lignos, D.G. and Karamanci, E. (2013), Drift-based and dual-parameter fragility curves for concentrically braced frames in seismic regions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 90, 209-220.
  15. Tsai, M.-H. (2012) A performance-based design approach for retrofitting regular building frames with steel braces against sudden column loss. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 77, 1-11.
  16. Ozel, A.E. and Güneyisi, E.M. (2011) Effects of eccentric steel bracing systems on seismic fragility curves of mid-rise R/C buildings: A case study. Structural Safety, 33, 82-95.
  17. Institue of Building National (2014) Code Building National Code of Iran- Loads for Building.
  18. S.I.C. Computers (2011) Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures-Computer Program. Berkeley, California PEFORM-3D (Version 5).
  19. Moehle, J., Bozorgnia, Y., Jayaram, N., Jones, P., Rahnama, M., Shome, N. (2011) Case Studies of the Seismic Performance of Tall Buildings Designed by Alternative Means. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley PEER Report 2011/05.
  20. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31, 491-514.
  21. Jalayer, F. and Cornell, C. (2009) Alternative Nonlinear Demand Estimation Methods for Probability-Based Seismic Assessment. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 38(8), 951 – 972.
  22. A.S.o.C. Engineers (2013) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. ed: American Society of Civil Engineers.
  23. FEMA-356 (2000) NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. ed: Building Seismic Safety Council Washington, DC.
  24. Venture, S.J. (2000) Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Welded Steel Moment Frame Buildings, Report No. FEMA 351, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
  25. B.S.S. Council (2004) NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450): Provisions/Prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council: Building Seismic Safety Council, National Institute of Building Sciences.
  26. Ariyaratana, C. and Fahnestock, L.A. (2011) Evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frame seismic performance considering reserve strength. Engineering Structures, 33, 77-89.
  27. Baker, J.W. and Cornell, C.A. (2008) Uncertainty propagation in probabilistic seismic loss estimation. Structural Safety, 30, 236-252.
  28. Baker, J.W. and Cornell, C.A. (2006) Vector-Valued Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley, PEER report 2006/08.