Fragility Curves for Vulnerability Assessment of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames Adjacent to Slopes

Document Type : Structural Earthquake Engineering


Kharazmi University


Observations from past earthquakes in addition to the results from analytical and numerical studies have shown that topographic irregularities significantly affect seismic site responses. Nonetheless, few studies have focused on the effect of topography amplification on the seismic vulnerability of buildings adjacent to slopes. In this study, using “match up damage index to damage thresholds” method introduced in HAZUS, fragility curves were developed for steel moment-resisting frames (SMRF) built adjacent to slopes. A two-dimensional finite-element model of the soil was implemented in ABAQUS to develop the fragility curves. Six models of combination of soil-structure and topography were considered. Furthermore, three types of buildings at different distances from the crest of the slope were considered. The results indicated that slope effect leads to up to 37% increase in the damage probability and illustrated that amplification factor had a range of 1.1 to 1.35, moreover, in comparison with slight states, the probability damage growth rate in moderate and extensive states are higher.


  1. Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Institute of Building Science. HAZUS (1999) Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology-Technical Manual.
  2. Schultz, M., Gouldby, B., Simm, J., and Wibowo, J. (2010) Beyond the Factor of Safety: Developing Fragility Curves to Characterize System Reliability. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory and Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory. Oxfordshire, OX109BA, UK.
  3. Singhal, A. and Kiremidjian, A. (1998) Bayesian Updating of Fragilities with Application to RC Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 124(8), 922-929.
  4. Rossetto, T. and Elnashai, A. (2003) Derivation of Vulnerability Functions for European-Type RC Structures Based on Observational Data. Journal of Structural Engineering, 25(10), 1241-1263.
  5. Ellinwood, R. (2008) structural reliability and performance-based. Engineering Structures and Buildings, 161(4), 199-207.
  6. Saez, E., Lopez-Caballero, F., and Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi, A. (2011) Effect of the inelastic dynamic soil–structure interaction on the seismic vulnerability assessment. Structural Safety, 33, 51–63.
  7. Rizzitano, S., Cascone, E., and Biondi, G. (2014) Coupling of topographic and stratigraphic effects on seismic response of slopes through 2D linear and equivalent linear analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 67, 66–84.
  8. Bouckovalas, G. and Papadimitriou, A. (2005) Numerical evaluation of slope topography effects on seismic ground motion. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25, 547-558.
  9. Ashford, S.A, Sitar, N., Lysmer, J., Deng, N. (1997) Topographic effects on the seismic response of steep slopes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 87, 701–709.
  10. Tripe, R., Kontoe, S., and Wong, T.K.C. (2013) Slope topography effects on ground motion in the presence Of deep soil layers. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 50, 72-84.
  11. Assimaki, D. and Kausel, E. (2007) Modified Topographic Amplification Factors for a Single-Faced Slope due to Kinematic Soil-Structure Interaction. Geotechnical and Geo environmental Engineering, ASCE, 11, 1414-1431.
  12. Nasserasadi, K., Ghafory-Ashtiany, M., Eshghi, S., and Zolfaghari, M.R. (2009) Developing seismic fragility function of structures by stochastic approach. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), 10(2), 183-200.
  13. Karavasilis, T., Bazeos, N., and Beskos, D. (2007) Behavior factor for performance-based seismic design of plane steel moment resisting frames. Earthquake Engineering, 11, 531–59.
  14. Eurocode 3 (1993) Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization (Cen). Brussels.
  15. Eurocode 8 (2005) Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance; Part 1: General Rules. Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization. Brussels.
  16. Zerwer, A., Cascant, G., and Hutchinson, J. (2002) Parameter estimation in finite element simulations of rayleigh waves. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 128(3).
  17. Ghanbari, A., Zarangzadeh, S., Rezaee, F., and Sheikh-Zakariaee, S. (2011) Geotechnical Properties of central Part of Karaj Alluvium. Scientific Quarterly Journal, Geosciences, 25(10), 1241-1263.
  18. Bazazura, P. and Cornell, C. (1994) Seismic hazard analysis of nonlinear structures. Structural Engineering, 120(11), 20-44.
  19. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Online Strong Motion Database, [2017, June 12].
  20. Lin, L. (2012) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using improved intensity measures. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
  21. Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC) (2014) Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Standard No. 2800, 4th ed.