This paper aims at contributing to the seismic vulnerability assessment of a historic brick masonry building constructed in Istanbul by comparison of the derived analytical and empirical fragility functions. For this purpose, Incremental Dynamic Analysis for each ground motion record was initially performed by series of Nonlinear Time History Analyses on the most vulnerable façade of the case study building modelled using Equivalent Frame Method. By scaling the PGA values of the fifteen earthquake records selected from PEER NGA West2 Data Base, it was aimed to observe the structural response corresponding the all limit states from yield point to collapse and identify each PGA causing the structure to reach these limit states. Herein, PGA and Spectral Displacements were considered as the seismic intensity parameters, and the ultimate storey drifts were referred as Engineering Demand Parameter. Both analytical and empirical seismic fragility functions were derived using lognormal probability distribution. Consequently, the obtained analytical fragility curves for vulnerability assessment of the building were compared with the fragility curves derived according to European (RISK-UE), HAZUS and Istanbul Building Taxonomies for the same building classification with the case study building in attempt to investigate the concordance of the results.

Full document

The PDF file did not load properly or your web browser does not support viewing PDF files. Download directly to your device: Download PDF document


[1] Simões, A.G., Bento, R., Lagomarsino, S., Cattari, S. and Lourenço, P.B. Fragility Functions for Tall URM Buildings around Early 20th Century in Lisbon. Part 1: Methodology and Application at Building Level. International Journal of Architectural Heritage (2019), pp.1-24.

[2] Saloustros, S., Pelà, L., Contrafatto, F.R., Roca, P. and Petromichelakis, I. Analytical derivation of seismic fragility curves for historical masonry structures based on stochastic analysis of uncertain material parameters. International Journal of Architectural Heritage (2019), 13(7), pp.1142-1164.

[3] Lagomarsino, S., and Cattari, S. Fragility functions of masonry buildings. SYNER-G: Typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk. Springer, Dordrecht, (2014), pp.111-156.

[4] Lagomarsino, S. and Cattari, S. PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2015), 13(1), pp.13-47.

[5] Mouroux, P. and Le Brun, B. Presentation of RISK-UE project. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2006), 4(4), pp.323-339.

[6] Hancilar, U., F. Taucer, and G. Tsionis. Guidelines for typology definition of European physical assets for earthquake risk assessment. SYNER-G Reference Report 2 (2013).

[7] Erberik, M.A. Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in‐ plane failure modes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics (2008), 37(3), pp.387-405.

[8] Porter, K., Kennedy, R. and Bachman, R. Creating fragility functions for performancebased earthquake engineering. Earthquake Spectra (2007), 23(2), pp.471-489.

[9] Jaiswal, K., Wald, D. and D'Ayala, D. Developing empirical collapse fragility functions for global building types. Earthquake Spectra (2011), 27(3), pp.775-795.

[10] Sarabandi, P., Pachakis, D., King, S. and Kiremidjian, A. Empirical fragility functions from recent earthquakes. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Paper (2004) (No. 1211).

[11] Demirlioglu, K., Gonen, S. and, Soyoz, S. Performance Evaluation of a Historical Brick Masonry Building Using Linear and Nonlinear Analyses. 13th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering September 12-14 (2018).

[12] Demirlioglu, K., Gonen, S., Soyoz, S. and Limongelli, M.P. In-Plane seismic response analyses of a historical brick masonry building using equivalent frame and 3D FEM modeling approaches. International Journal of Architectural Heritage (2020),14(2), pp.238-256.

[13] Magenes, G., and G. M. Calvi. In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthquake Engineering &Structural Dynamics (1997), 26 (11):1091–1112.

[14] Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni (NTC 2008). 2008. Technical standards for Buildings D.M. Suppl. ord. n° 30 alla G.U. n.29. Roma, Italy: Gazzetta Ufficiale (2008).

[15] Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni (NTC 2018). 2018. Technical standards for Buildings D.M. Suppl. ord. n° 42 alla G.U. n. 8. Roma, Italy: Gazzetta Ufficiale (2018).

[16] EN 1998-3. 2005. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Committee for Standardization (2005).

[17] Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics (2002), 31(3), pp.491-514.

[18] Maio, R. and Tsionis, G. Seismic fragility curves for the European building stock. Brussels: JRC Technical Report, European Commission (2015).

[19] RISK-UE. The European Risk-UE Project: An Advanced Approach to Earthquake Risk Scenarios. (2001-2004) www.risk-ue.net

[20] FEMA, (1999). HAZUS99 user and technical manuals. Federal Emergency Management Agency Report: HAZUS 1999, Washington D.C., USA. (1999).

[21] FEMA (2003). “HAZUS-MH Technical Manual”, Federal Emergency Management Agency,Washington, DC, U.S.A

[22] Risk yönetimi ve kentsel iyileştirme daire başkanliği deprem ve zemin inceleme müdürlüğü, İstanbul Olasi Deprem Kayip Tahminleri Deprem, (2009).

Back to Top

Document information

Published on 30/11/21
Submitted on 30/11/21

Volume Vulnerability and risk analysis, 2021
DOI: 10.23967/sahc.2021.238
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA license

Document Score


Views 3
Recommendations 0

Share this document

claim authorship

Are you one of the authors of this document?