Seismic vulnerability of non-structural members in reinforced concrete buildings located in Tehran

Document Type : Research


1 Ph.D. Student, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant professor, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.

3 Professor, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.


Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings are a common type of structure. Dual systems (containing RC shear walls and moment resisting frame), and moment resisting frame systems are the most common types of RC buildings in Iran. Some researchers have studied the seismic reliability of bridge structures using field data. However, in Iran, real field data is not used to analyze the reliability of RC buildings. In this study, reliability analysis is used to assess the failure of non-structural members in the RC buildings. The probability distribution of the concrete and steel bars strength is gathered by using field tests. The tests were done in 110 RC buildings in Tehran. Afterward, a series of time history analysis were done to determine the probability of failure in non-structural members. Monte Carlo sampling is used for reliability analysis. The reliability of two common RC structural systems are compared under different earthquake records. It is found that the dual system can have a better performance under seismic excitation and it can reduce the damage in an earthquake.


1. Haeri Kermani A and Fadaee MJ. Assessment of seismic reliability of RC framed buildings using a vector-valued intensity measure. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 2013; 14:17-32.
2. Lin KC, Lin CC, Chen JY and Chang HY. Seismic reliability of steel framed buildings. Structural Safety 2010; 32:174-182.
3. Abdelouafi EG, Abdellatif K, Mohamed B and Francesc LA. Seismic performance reliability analysis for reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology 2011; 2: 45-53.
4. Celik OC and Ellingwood BR. Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames-Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Structural Safety 2010; 32:1-12.
5. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Deierlein GG, Dean BS and Chou JH. Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. I: Assessment of ductile moment frames. Structural Engineering 2011; 137: 481-91.
6. Jalayer F, Iervolino I and Manfredi G. Structural modeling uncertainties and their influence on seismic assessment of existing RC structures, Structural Safety 2010 32:;220-28.
7. Mahdi T and Soltan Gharaieb V. Plan irregular RC frames: comparison of pushover with nonlinear dynamic analysis, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 2011; 12: 679-90.
8. Mehanny SSF and El Howary HA. Assessment of RC moment frame buildings in moderate seismic zones: Evaluation of Egyptian seismic code implications and system configuration effects. Engineering Structures 2010; 32:2394-406.
9. Shafei B, Zareian F and Lignos DG. A simplified method for collapse capacity assessment of moment-resisting frame and shear wall structural systems 2011; Engineering Structures, 33:1107-16.
10. Kadid A, Yahiaoui D and Chebili R. Behavior of reinforced concrete buildings under simultaneous horizontal and vertical ground motions, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 2010; 11: 463-76.
11. Lynch KP, Rowe KL and Liel AB. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame buildings in Southern California. Earthquake Spectra 2011; 27: 399-418.
12. Thinley K and Hao H. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame buildings in Bhutan based on fuzzy probability analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2017; 92: 604-620.
13. Lynch KP, Rowe KL and Abbie B. Liel AB.Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings in Southern California. Earthquake Spectra 2011; 27: 399-418.
14. Çavdar O, Çavdar A and Bayraktar E. Earthquake Performance of Reinforced-Concrete Shear-Wall Structure Using Nonlinear Methods. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 2018; 32:1-12.
15. Kitayama S and Constantinou MC. Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of seismically isolated buildings designed by the procedures of ASCE/SEI 7 and other enhanced criteria. Engineering Structures 2019; 179: 566-582.
16. Ufuk Hancilar U, Çaktı E, Erdik M, Franco G E, Deodatis G. Earthquake vulnerability of school buildings: Probabilistic structural fragility analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2014; 67: 169-178.
17. Huang Q and Paolo Gardoni P and Stefan Hurlebaus. Adaptive Reliability Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Bridges Subject to Seismic Loading Using Nondestructive Testing. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering 2015; 1:1-14.
18. Küttenbaum S, Taffe A, Braml T, and Maack S. Reliability assessment of existing bridge constructions based on results of non-destructive Testing. MATEC Web of Conferences 199 2018; [DOI:10.1051/matecconf/201819906001]
19. ASTM (American Society of Testing Materials). (2003). "Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity Through Concrete." C 597 - 02.
20. McKenna F, Fenves GL, Filipou FC, Scott M, Law K, Deierlein G, et al. OpenSees, open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Pacific Earthquake Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley, Stanford University and University of Washington; 2002.
21. ACI Committee 318. (2011). "Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary."ACI 318-11/318R-11, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 509.
22. Center for engineering strong motion data. Accessed December 20, 2020.
23. Nikolaidis E, Ghiocel DM, Singhal S, editors. Engineering design reliability handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2004.