Post on 12-Nov-2021
SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF LOW DUCTILE PARTIALLY INFILLED
REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAME IN MALAYSIA
NUR AMALINA BINTI ANUAR
A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Structure)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JUNE 2017
To my beloved mother and father
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, all praises to Allah Almighty for giving me
accomplishment in completing this project report through many people and sources.
In preparing this thesis, I was in contact with many dedicated academicians of
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. They have contributed towards my understanding
and thoughts. In particular, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my main
supervisor, Dr. Mohammadreza Vafaei for his patience, motivation, immense
knowledge and providing me with continuous support with regards to my study and
related research. I am also very thankful to my co-supervisor, Dr. Sophia C. Alih for
her insightful advices and encouragement. Their guidance helped me throughout the
process of researching and writing of this project report.
My appreciation also extends to Ministry of Education Malaysia for funding
my Master’s degree course in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia through MyBrain15
scholarship programme.
I am indebted to my family for the support they provided me spiritually
throughout the writing of this thesis. And finally, I acknowledge my friends who
have been providing me assistance throughout this research. My fellow postgraduate
students should also be recognized for their continuous support and advices
throughout the accomplishment of this project report.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to develop analytical fragility curves for low
ductile partially infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames building under seismic
ground motions. Three RC frames with their ground story open and masonry walls
infilled in all of the upper stories (pilotis) comprise of three-, six- and nine-stories
were selected, modelled, and analysed representing common building type in
Malaysia. These frames were designed in accordance with BS 8110-1997 code
specification. 45 seismic ground motions were used and subdivided into three groups
namely low (L), medium (M) and high (H) records based on peak ground
acceleration (PGA) over peak ground velocity (PGV) ratio. ETABS 2015 was used
to perform Incremental Dynamic Collapse Analysis (IDA) with increment every 0.1g
until 0.5g. The PGA was compared to the maximum inter-story drift demand
obtained from nonlinear time history analysis and also to the three levels of
performance-based seismic designs, namely, immediate occupancy (IO), life safety
(LS), and collapse prevention (CP) to assess structural performance. The results
show that as the height of structure increases, the intensity of damage decreases.
Therefore, 3 story is the most damaging structure followed by 6-story and 9-story.
For all types of structure assessed, the most devastating type of earthquake records is
M. For 3 and 9 story, there are no difference observed between IO and LS. This
shows that the preserved strength was very small where IO suddenly jumps straight
to CP with increasing intensity. As for 6 story there is a clear distance between IO,
LS and CP and this shows that the structure is not very fragile.
ABSTRAK
Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk menghasilkan lengkung kerapuhan bagi
rangka konkrit bertetulang (RC) bermulur rendah separa penuh dibawah pengaruh
pergerakan tanah seismik. Bingkai RC dengan tingkat bawah terbuka tanpa dinding
dan semua tingkat atas dipenuhi dinding yang terdiri daripada tiga-, enam dan
sembilan tingkat telah dipilih, peringkat, dan dianalisa mewakili jenis bangunan
biasa di Malaysia. Kerangka ini direka mengikut spesifikasi kod BS 8110-1997. 45
rekod pergerakan tanah telah dibahagikan kepada tiga kumpulan iaitu rendah (L),
sederhana (M) dan tinggi (H) rekod berdasarkan puncak tanah pecutan (PGA) nisbah
halaju (PGV) puncak tanah. ETABS 2015 telah digunakan untuk melakukan analisis
kejatuhan dinamik tokokan (IDA) dengan kenaikan setiap 0.1g hingga 0.5g. PGA
adalah permintaan maksimum antara tingkat drift yang diperolehi daripada analisis
tolakan statik tak linear dan juga kepada tiga peringkat berasaskan prestasi seismik
reka bentuk, iaitu serta-merta penghunian (IO), keselamatan hidup (LS), dan
pencegahan runtuhan (CP) untuk menilai prestasi struktur. Hasil kajian menunjukkan
bahawa apabila ketinggian struktur bertambah, kerosakan struktur berkurangan. Oleh
itu, bangunan 3 tingkat adalah yang mengalami kerosakan paling merosakkan
struktur diikuti dengan bangunan 6 tingkat dan 9 tingkat. Untuk semua jenis struktur
yang dinilai, jenis rekod gempa bumi yg paling menghancurkan adalah jenis M. Bagi
bangunan 3 dan 9 tingkat, tiada perbezaan yang diperhatikan antara IO dan LS. Ini
menunjukkan bahawa kekuatan dalaman struktur adalah sangat kecil di mana IO
tiba-tiba bertukar terus ke CP dengan peningkatan intensiti gempa bumi. Bagi 6
tingkat terdapat jarak yang jelas antara IO, LS dan CP dan ini menunjukkan bahawa
struktur itu tidak begitu rapuh.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENT S vii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS xv
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Objectives of Research 5
1.4 Scopes of Research 5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.1.1 Earthquake Formation 7
x
2.2 Seismotectonic and Geological Setting of Malaysia 10
2.2.1 Seismic Hazard in Malaysia 12
2.5 Ground Motion Intensity Measures 21
2.6 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 21
2.6.1 Nonlinear Analysis 23
2.7 Limit States 27
2.8 Fragility Curve 29
3 METHODOLOGY 33
3.1 General 33
3.2 Selection of appropriate plan and number of stories for studied
building 35
3.3 Finite Element Simulation and Design of Buildings According
to Common Practice in Malaysia 37
3.3.1 Concrete Material Properties 37
3.3.2 Steel Material Properties 38
3.3.3 Load Assignments 39
3.3.4 Cross section of beams and columns 44
3.3.5 Partially infilled frame 48
3.4 Selection of Appropriate Seismic Records 50
3.5 Determination of Performance Limit State and Acceptance
Criteria 54
3.3.6 Hinge Assignment 54
3.6 Performing Incremental Dynamic Collapse Analysis 57
3.7 Data extraction and analysis 58
3.8 Derivation of Fragility Curves 58
4 RESULTS & DISCUSSION 60
4.1 Failure mechanism of studied frame 61
4.1.1 Plastic hinges formation in 3-story frame 62
4.1.2 Plastic hinges formation in 6-story frame 65
4.1.3 Plastic hinges formation in 9-story frame 68
4.1.4 Summary of failure mechanism formation 71
xi
4.2 Inter-story drift demand 72
4.2.1 Inter-story drift demand of 3 story frame 72
4.2.2 Inter-story drift demand of 6 story frame 76
4.2.3 Inter-story drift demand of 9 story frame 80
4.3 Capacity of structure 83
4.3.1 Capacity of 3-story frame 85
4.3.2 Capacity of 6-story frame 87
4.3.3 Capacity of 9-story frame 89
4.4 Development of fragility curves 91
4.4.1 Derivation of Fragility Curve for 3-story frame 92
4.4.2 Derivation of fragility curves for 6 story frame 100
4.4.3 Derivation of fragility curves for 9 story frame 107
4.5 Peak Ground Acceleration for Malaysia 115
5 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION 117
5.1 Conclusion 117
5.2 Recommendations 119
REFERENCES 120
xii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Effects from earthquakes 10
2.2 Damage control and Building Performance Levels 28
3.1 Design Parameters 35
3.2 Low (L) seismic motion records 52
3.3 Medium (M) seismic motion records 53
3.4 High (H) seismic motion records 53
4.1 Maximum inter-story drift demand of 3 story under L records 73
4.2 Maximum inter-story drift demand of 3 story under M records 74
4.3 Maximum inter-story drift demand of 3 story under H records 75
4.4 Maximum inter-story drift demand of 6 story under L records 77
4.5 Maximum inter-story drift demand of 6 story under M records 78
4.6 Maximum inter-story drift demand of 6 story under H records 79
4.7 Maximum inter-story drift demand of 9 story under L records 80
4.8 Maximum inter-story drift demand of 9 story under M records 81
4.9 Maximum inter-story drift demand of 9 story under H records 82
4.10 Capacity of 3 story under L seismic records 85
4.11 Capacity of 3 story under M seismic records 85
4.12 Capacity of 3 story under H seismic records 86
xiii
4.13 Capacity of 6 story under L seismic records 87
4.14 Capacity of 6 story under M seismic records 88
4.15 Capacity of 6 story under H seismic records 88
4.16 Capacity of 9 story under L seismic records 89
4.17 Capacity of 9 story under M seismic records 89
4.18 Capacity of 9 story under H seismic records 90
4.19 Fragility curve calculation for 3 story frame L records 94
4.20 Fragility curve calculation for 3 story frame M records 95
4.21 Fragility curve calculation for 3 story frame H records 96
4.22 Fragility curve calculation for 6 story frame L records 102
4.23 Fragility curve calculation for 6 story frame M records 103
4.24 Fragility curve calculation for 6 story frame H records 104
4.25 Fragility curve calculation for 9 story frame L records 109
4.26 Fragility curve calculation for 9 story frame M records 110
4.27 Fragility curve calculation for 9 story frame H records 111
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Fault lines and subduction trench surrounding Malaysia 11
2.2. Illustration of soft story building 15
2.3 Dispersed damage/beam-sway and column sway 16
2.4 Masonry infilled frame sub assemblages 17
2.5 Variation of seismic force with ductility demand 19
2.6 Plastic hinge rotation on structural elements 22
2.7 Components of analytical vulnerability assessment 23
2.8 Capacity curve of structures 24
2.9 Limit states of buildings in severe earthquake 28
3.1 Flow chart of research methodology 34
3.2 Plan view of studied building 36
3.3 Elevation view of 3-story RC frame model 36
3.4 Distribution of dead load imposed on 3 story frame 39
3.5 Distribution of live load imposed on 3 story frame 40
3.6 Lateral wind load imposed to 3-story frame 41
3.7 Lateral wind load imposed to 6-story frame 42
3.8 Lateral wind load imposed to 9-story frame 43
3.9 Longitudinal Steel Reinforcing of 3-story model 44
xv
3.10 Cross section of 3 storey RC frame 45
3.11 Cross section of 6 story RC frame 46
3.12 Cross section of 9 story RC frame 47
3.13 Masonry infilled frame sub assemblages 48
3.14 Compressive diagonal struts used in studied building 49
3.15 Relationship of source distance and PGA/PGV 50
3.16 Relationship of source distance and magnitude 51
3.17 Hinges assigned to structural elements 54
3.18 Hinge property for masonry wall 55
3.19 Hinge property for columns 55
3.20 Hinge properties for beams 56
3.21 Load case data used in Etabs 2015 57
4.1 Formation of plastic hinges in 3 story frame L records 62
4.2 Formation of plastic hinges in 3 story frame M records 63
4.3 Formation of plastic hinges in 3 story frame H records 64
4.4 Formation of plastic hinges in 6 story frame L records 65
4.5 Formation of plastic hinges in 6 story frame M records 66
4.6 Formation of plastic hinges in 6 story frame H records 67
4.7 Formation of plastic hinges in 9 story frame L records 68
4.8 Formation of plastic hinges in 9 story frame M records 69
4.9 Formation of plastic hinges in 9 story frame H records 70
4.10 Median of inter-story drift demand for 3 story frame (L) 92
4.11 Median of inter-story drift demand for 3 story frame (M) 92
4.12 Median of inter-story drift demand for 3 story frame (H) 93
4.13 Fragility curve of 3-story partially infilled RC frame 97
4.14 Median of inter-story drift demand for 6 story frame (L) 100
4.15 Median of inter-story drift demand for 6 story frame (M) 101
xvi
4.16 Median of inter-story drift demand for 6 story frame (H) 101
4.17 Fragility curve of 6-story partially infilled RC frame 105
4.18 Median of inter-story drift demand for 9 story frame (L) 107
4.19 Median of inter-story drift demand for 9 story frame (M) 108
4.20 Median of inter-story drift demand for 9 story frame (H) 108
4.21 Fragility curve of 9 story partially infilled RC frame 112
4.22 PGA with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years 115
xvii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
fck - Characteristic cube strength of concrete
fyk - Characteristic strength of reinforcement
Fu - Ultimate stress of reinforcement
Fy - Yield stress of reinforcement
k - Stiffness
D - Damage
Ф - Standard normal cumulative distribution of PGA
μ - Mean
σ - Standard deviation
Mw - Moment magnitude scale
cm - centimetre
m - metre
km - kilometre
MPa - MegaPascal
kN - kiloNewton
∆ - deflection
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
In this study, the fragility functions developed for low ductile partially
infilled Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings are discussed. The seismic fragility
analysis of structure is a requirement for seismic loss estimation and seismic risk
management. The vulnerability of structures, seismically, is usually conveyed
through functions of fragility, which denote the probability of exceeding or reaching
limit state performance damage by seismic ground movements. Fragility curves are
tremendously essential to estimate the total risk to the structural buildings from
possible tremors and to forecast the effects of loss to the economy from forthcoming
tremors. These fragility functions also can be handy in planning for disaster or
emergency response by national authority, furthermore an advantage for the
insurance companies to execute rough estimation on the total loss of the post-
earthquake.
Additionally, fragility curves can also be utilized to outline the design
retrofitting for damaged structures or that with inadequate strength to resist
earthquake loadings. This is done by performing benefit and cost studies for different
sorts of structural material and properties. Moreover, these fragility functions can be
used to alleviate risk through the adjustment of seismic codes for the plan of new
2
structures; the potential losses are quantitatively compared with the additional cost in
providing seismic resistance.
A large portion of the structures, additionally the buildings constructed
without the consideration of seismic code may have adequate and sufficient lateral
strength to withstand tremors of moderate size with a small degree of damage but not
severe or extreme tremors. Studies on vulnerability are conducted preceding the
earthquake events. The significance of the building, its utilization and the owner’s
necessities will decide whether the damage is acceptable or not.
The design of the buildings is based on the provisions of British Standard
8110-1997 in this study. The studied buildings are designed to resist wind loads and
gravity loads only as most of the buildings in Malaysia did not imply seismic codes
on the buildings due to its location outside earthquake prone areas. 45 ground motion
records are imposed to estimate the vulnerability of the buildings. The variable
considerations are the buildings heights that are the number of storeys and the
seismic design level with regard to Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). Extra
consideration for the partially infilled frames is the quantity of infills (brick walls). In
this study, three performance levels or limit states, namely immediate occupancy
(IO), life safety (LS) and collapse prevention (CP) are considered to assess the
structural performance denoting the inter-story demand. The damage scale or
measure of interest is corresponded from the median value of the fragility functions.
Hence, in this study, fragility curves are used as the main tool for
preparations of seismic risk map. As mentioned before, fragility analysis plays an
important role in seismic risk assessment to estimate the vulnerability of a structure
reaching or exceeding limit state performance damage by seismic ground
movements. This vulnerability assessment method can be categorized into four
categories, that are, empirical, hybrid, judgemental and analytical. The classification
relies on upon the damage data used in their generation which are established mainly
from observed post-tremor study, analytical simulation, expert judgement or
combination of both. (Kwon & Elnashai, 2006) The Malaysian Meteorological
Department reports that only limited data of strong ground motions have been
recorded. In view of that, the curves are developed using analytical simulation.
3
Moreover, these curves are particularly handy in vulnerability assessment, post
tremor assessment and retrofit prioritization from potential seismic tremors. (Jeong &
Elnashai, 2007) Additionally, these curves are more critical and vital in the loss
estimation of economy, life and occupancy that many happen as an aftereffect of
future seismic tremors. (Tan & Abdul Razak, 2010) Therefore, this project report
highlights the development of fragility curves to assess the vulnerability of buildings
under seismic ground motions.
1.2 Problem Statement
Earthquakes are one of the most disastrous events that could happen in
human history and are frequently exciting highly populated cities. Earthquakes
impose damages to structures and infrastructures, subsequently cause casualties and
fatalities. Malaysia is categorized under low seismicity group as it is located
tectonically within the comparatively steady Sunda Shelf. Except for Sabah, where it
is categorized under moderate seismicity group. Since Malaysia’s geology is far from
earthquake prone area, the buildings have been designed according to BS8110-1997
to resist gravity and wind loads effects only. A large portion of present and existing
Malaysian’s structures have not been designed for earthquake thus never designed to
take seismic excitation effect. Having experienced with local and distant seismic
motions, Malaysia has come to realize that the danger of earthquake is real and has
the risk to public safety and welfare.
Therefore, there has been effort to reduce seismic induced damages. One way
to decrease seismic induced damages is to retrofit buildings which have not been
designed for seismic actions. There are several methods available, namely,
reinforcement jacketing, steel jacketing and Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
installation that have been proposed to mitigate or reduce structural damages under
seismic actions. In order to retrofit our structures, we need to allocate enough
budgets and the government should have estimation on total cost for retrofitting and
4
rehabilitating the structures. Therefore, one way to estimate seismic induced
damages and the cost for retrofit of buildings is by preparing seismic risk map.
Hence, in this study, fragility curves are used as the main tool for
preparations of seismic risk map. For Malaysia, there has been no comprehensive
study on the preparation of fragility curves. Based on the research carried out by
(Saruddin & Mohamed Nazri, 2015), they developed fragility curves for material of
moment resisting concrete frame (MRCF) and steel frame (MRSF). It was found that
the steel frame has better performance than moment resisting concrete frame. (Tan,
et al., 2014) developed fragility curves for three story reinforced concrete frame.
From their study, the results indicate that the fragility curves are affected by both the
number of stories in the building and soil conditions.
Based on the affirmation studies, there has been no fragility curves developed
for low ductile partially infilled RC frame in Malaysia. There is also no fragility
curves developed for partially infilled RC frame that takes into consideration near-
and far-field effects of earthquakes in Malaysia. Therefore, in this study fragility
curves for low ductile partially infilled RC frame considering near-field and far-field
seismic ground motions are developed in contributing to the shortcomings of
previous studies.
5
1.3 Objectives of Research
Therefore, this study embarks on the following objectives:
1. To study failure mechanism of low ductile partially infilled RC frames
subjected to ground motions.
2. To investigate inter-storey drift demand of low ductile partially infilled RC
frames subjected to ground motions.
3. To develop seismic fragility curves for low ductile partially infilled RC
frames subjected to ground motions.
1.4 Scopes of Research
This project focuses on the following scopes:
1. Seismic fragility of low ductile partially reinforced concrete frames in
Malaysia subjected to seismic ground motions.
2. Seismic risk analysis using fragility curves for three-, six- and nine storeys of
RC frame buildings are selected as studied buildings
3. All of the buildings are regular in both plan and elevation configuration.
4. Each frame of three-, six- and nine-story has four 6m bays and typical story
height of 3m except for the ground story having height of 4m. The total
height of building is 10m, 19m and 28m respectively.
6
5. Compressive strength of concrete: 20 MPa
6. Yield stress of reinforcement, Fy : 300 MPa
7. Ultimate stress of reinforcement, Fu : 420 MPa
8. Live load applied is 6 kN/m2
9. Dead load applied is 25.5kN/m except for the top floor (without walls) i.e.
15.54kN/m
10. 45 earthquake records will be used to perform Incremental Dynamic Collapse
Analysis (IDA)
11. The structures are designed in compliance with the BS 8110-1997 code
specification
12. Preliminary design of these 3 models is performed by using ETABS 2015
software. This finite element simulation and design of buildings are according
to common practice in Malaysia.
120
REFERENCES
Adnan, A., Hendriyawan, Marto, A. & Irsyam, M., 2005. Seismic hazard assessment
for Peninsular Malaysia using Gumbel Distribution Method. Jurnal Teknologi, pp.
57-73.
Adnan, A., Hendriyawan, Marto, A. & Irsyam, M., 2005. Seismic Hazard
Assessment for Peninsular Malaysia Using Gumbel Distribution Method. Jurnal
Teknologi, pp. 57-73.
Asamoah, M. A. & Ankamah, N. O., March 2016. Effect of Design Ductility on the
Progressive Collapse Potential of RC Frame Structures Designed to Eurocode 8.
American Journal of Civil Engineering, 4(2), pp. 40-49.
Aslam Faqeer Mohamad, M. F. R. G. E. S., 2016. Seismic performance of older R/C
frame structures accounting for infills-induced shear failure of columns. Engineering
Structures, pp. 1-13.
Asteris, P. G., Chrysostomou, C. Z., Giannopoulus, I. P. & Smyrou, E., 2011.
Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames with Openings. Greece, s.n.
Bolt, B. A., 2003. Earthquakes. Berkeley: W. H. Freeman.
Bozorgnia, Y. & Bertero, V., 2004. Non-linear dynamic analysis. Earthquake
engineering: from engineering seismology to performance-based design, pp. 1-17.
Calvi, G. M. et al., 2006. DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS. ISET Journal
of Earthquake Technology, pp. 75-104.
Cornell, C. A. & Krawingkler, H., 2000. Progress and Challenges in Seismic
Performance Assessment. [Online]
Available at: http://peer.berkeley.edu/news/2000spring/performance.html
121
DeVall, R. H., 2003. Background information for some of the proposed earthquake
design provisions for the 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada.
Can. J. Civil Eng. 30, pp. 279-286.
Dolsek, M. & Fajfar, P., 2008. The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response
of a four-storey reinfirced concrete frame- a deterministic assessment. Engineering
Structures, pp. 1991-2001.
Dolsek, M. & Fajfar, P., 2008. The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response
of a four-storey reinforced concrete frame-a deterministic assessment. Engineering
Structures 30, pp. 1991-2001.
Dumova-Jovanoska, E., 2004. Fragility Curves for RC Structures in Skopje Region.
Vancouver, Canada, s.n., p. Paper No. 3.
Elghazouli, A., 2009. Seismic Design of Buildings to Eurocode 8. London, United
Kingdom, Spon Press.
FEMA 356, 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA P-58-1, 2012. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 1 –
Methodology. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Filiatrault, A. et al., 2013. Elements of Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics. Canada: Presses Internationales Polytechnique.
Ghobarah, A., 2001. Performance based design in earthquake engineering:state of
development. Journal of Engineering Structures 23, pp. 878-884.
Gill, J., Shariff, N. S., Omar, K. & Amin, Z. M., 2015. Tectonic Motion of Malaysia :
Analysis from Years 2001 to 2013. Kuala Lumpur, ISPRS Annals of the
Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, pp. 1-8.
Guevara-Perez, L. T., 2012. "Soft Story" and "Weak Story" in Earthquake Resistant
Design: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 15 WCEE.
Hejazil, F. et al., 2011. Effect of Soft Story on Structural Response of High Rise
Buildings. IOP Conf. Series: Material sScience and Engineering, pp. 1-13.
Hetland, E. A. & Hager, B. H., 2006. Interseismic strain accumuluation: Spin-up,
cycle invariance, and irregular rupture sequences. Geochemistry, Geophysics,
Geosystems, p. 7(5).
Heydari, M. & Mousavi, M., 2015. The Comparison of Seismic Effects of Near-Field
and Far-Field Earthquakes on Relative Displacements on Seven-storey Concrete
Building with Shear Wall. Special Issue of Curr World Environment.
122
Holmes, M., 1961. Steel frames with brickwork and concrete infilling. London, s.n.,
pp. 473-478.
Ibrahim, Y. & El-Shami, M., 2011. Seismic Fragility Curves for Mid-Rise
Reinforced Concrete Frames in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The IES Journal Part A:
Civil & Structural Engineering, pp. 213-223.
Jeong, S. H. & Elnashai, A. S., 2007. Probabilistic Fragility Analysis Parameterized
by Fundamantal Response Quantities. Engineering Structures 29(6), pp. 1238-1251.
Kalantari, A., 2012. Seismic Risk of Structures and the Economic Issues of
Earthquakes. In: Earthquake Engineering. s.l.:Intech.
Kwon, O. S. & Elnashai, A., 2006. The Effect of Material and Ground Motion
Uncertainty on the Seismic Vulnerability Curves of RC Structure. Engineering
Structures 28(2), pp. 289-303.
Liauw, T.-C. & Kwan, K.-H., 1984. Nonliner behaviour of non-integral infilled
frames. Computers & Structures, pp. 551-560.
Mat Said, S. N., 2010-2011. SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RISKS IN MALAYSIA,
Petaling Jaya: MMD.
MMD, 2016. Seismicity in Malaysia and around the Region. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.met.gov.my/web/metmalaysia/education/earthquakeandtsunami/seismicit
yinmalaysiaandaroundtheregion
[Accessed 14 November 2016].
Moniri, H., 2014. Evaluation of Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) for Near-Field Earthquakes.
Gazimagusa: Eastern Mediterranean University.
Monish, S. & Karuna, S., 2015. A Study On Seismic Performance Of High Rise
Irregular Rc Framed Buildings. IJRET: International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology.
Mwafy, A., 2012. Analytically derived fragility relationships for modern high-rise
buildings in the UAE. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buidings, pp. 824-
843.
Mwafy, A. M., 2010. Analytically derived fragility relationships for modern high-
rise buildings in UAE. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 21(11),
pp. 824-843.
Nazri, F. & Alexander, N., 2012. Predicting the Collapse Potential of Structures in
Earthquake. University of Bristol.
123
Paulay, T. & Priestley, M. J. N., 1992. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and
masonry buildings. New York: Wiley Interscience Publication.
Paul, J. et al., 2012. Andaman postseismic deformation observations: Still slipping
after all these years?. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, pp. 343-351.
Polyakov, S. V., 1960. On the interaction between masonry filler walls and enclosing
frame when loaded in the plane of the wall. Translation in Earthquake Engineering,
pp. 36-42.
Ravikumar, C. M., Babu, N. K. S., Sujith, B. V. & Venkat, R. D., 2012. Effect of
Irregular Configurations on Seismic. Journal of Architecture Research 2(3), pp. 20-
26.
Repapis, C. C., 2016. Seismic Performance Evaluation of Existing RC Buildings
Without Seismic Details. Comparison of Nonlinear Static Methods and IDA. The
Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, pp. 158-179.
Rossetto, T. & Elnashai, A., 2003. Derivation of vulnerability functions for
European-type RC structures based on observational data. Engineering Structures,
pp. 1241-1263.
Saruddin, S. N. A. & Mohamed Nazri, F., 2015. Fragility curves for low-rise and
mid-rise buildings in Malaysia. Procedia Engineering, pp. 873-878.
Sawada, T., Hirao, K., Yamamoto, H. & Tsujihara, O., 1992. Relation between
maximum amplitude ratio and spectral parameters of earthquake ground motion. s.l.,
s.n., pp. vol. 2. 617-22.
SEAOC, 1995. Vision 2000: Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings.
Sacramento, CA. Structural Engineers Association of California.
Seifi, M., Noorzaei, J., Jaafar, M. S. & Panah, E. Y., 2008. Nonlinear Static Pushover
Analysis in Earthquake Engineering: State of Development. ICCBT.
Seifi, M., Noorzaie, J., Jaafar, M. S. & Yazdan Panah, E., 2008. Nonlinear Static
Pushover Analysis in Earthquake Engineering: State of Development. Kuala
Lumpur, s.n., pp. 69-80.
Simons, W. J. F. et al., 2007. A decade of GPS in Southeast Asia: Resolving
Sundaland motion and boundaries. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solod Earth, p.
112(B6).
Sun, J. & Pan, T.-C., 1995. Seismic characteristics of Sumatra and its relevance to
Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Journal of Southeast Asian Earth Sciences, pp.
105-111.
Tan, K. & Abdul Razak, H., 2010. Seismic Hazard Assessment of School Buildings
In Peninsular Malaysia. SE Asian Appl. Geol., pp. 232-241.
124
Tan, K., Abdul Razak, H., Suhatril, M. & Lu, D., 2014. Fragility curves of a RC
frame building subjected to seismic ground motions. Civil Engineering research, pp.
159-163.
Tso, W. K., Zhu, T. J. & Heidebrecht, A. C., 1992. Engineering implication of
ground motion A/V ratio. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 11(3), pp.
133-144.
Tso, W., Zhu, T. & Heidebrecht, A., 1992. Engineering implication of ground motion
A/V ratio.. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, pp. 133-144.
UBC, 1997. Whittier, California, Uniform Building Code.
Vamvatsikos, D. & Cornell, C. A., 2002. Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake
Engineering Structure Dyn., p. 23.
Vamvatsikos, D. & Cornell, C. A., 2002. Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake
Engineering Structure Dynamics.
Vamvatsikos, D. & Cornell, C. A., 2005. Direct estimation of the seismic demand
and capacity of multi-degree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic
analysis of single degree of freedom approximation. Structure Engineering, pp. 589-
599.
Vigny, C. et al., 2005. Insight into the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake from GPS
measurements in Southeast Asia. Nature, pp. 201-206.
Villaverde, R., 2007. Methods to assess the seismic collapse capacity of building
structures : State of the art. Structure Engineering, pp. 57-66.