Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Effect of Proportioning of Lateral Stiffness in

Orthogonal Directions on Seismic Performance of
RC Buildings

Payal Gwalani, Yogendra Singh & Humberto Varum

To cite this article: Payal Gwalani, Yogendra Singh & Humberto Varum (2021): Effect of
Proportioning of Lateral Stiffness in Orthogonal Directions on Seismic Performance of RC
Buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2021.1964649

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2021.1964649

Published online: 15 Aug 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2021.1964649

Effect of Proportioning of Lateral Stiffness in Orthogonal Directions

on Seismic Performance of RC Buildings
a
Payal Gwalani , Yogendra Singha, and Humberto Varumb
a
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India; bCONSTRUCT-LESE,
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Effect of different proportioning of lateral force-resisting system in the Received 12 January 2021
orthogonal directions, on seismic collapse capacity and fragility of reinforced Accepted 28 July 2021
concrete buildings is investigated. Buildings with different structural systems KEYWORDS
and configurations, are designed for a modern seismic design code. To RC frame buildings; seismic
simulate the structural collapse, the hysteretic models of beams, columns, design; lateral stiffness;
and shear walls are duly calibrated using experimental tests results. Results hysteresis model; fragility
show that if the buildings of a given height are designed for the same hazard analysis; collapse probability
level, these show equal levels of safety against collapse, irrespective of the
proportioning of lateral load resisting systems in the orthogonal directions.

1. Introduction
The performance of a structure during an earthquake occurrence is highly uncertain and is influenced
by several parameters such as characteristics of ground motion and site effects, structural system and
its configuration, structural design and detailing, quality of construction, maintenance, etc. The effect
of some of these parameters, such as the selection of structural system, its configuration and propor­
tion, and ductile design and detailing, can be studied and precisely controlled in the planning and
design stage. For this purpose, most of the national codes provide detailed guidelines about config­
uration and proportioning of lateral load resisting system in buildings.
In RC buildings, beam-column frames and shear walls constitute the primary lateral force-resisting
system (LFRS). The columns and shear walls are oriented in different ways, along the two orthogonal
directions of the building, based on architectural and structural considerations. The general structural
design practice is to provide more or less equal lateral load resisting capacity in the two directions. The
seismic design codes, world-wide, (e.g., ASCE 7-16 2016; EN 1998-1 2004; NZS 1170-5 2004)
recommend that the LFRS should be oriented and proportioned symmetrically in a building so as
to avoid any form of irregularity in plan as well as in elevation. A few of the national design codes make
some specific provisions for the orientation of structural members. EN 1998-1 (2004) states that the
structural members should be oriented such that similar seismic resistance and stiffness characteristics
are provided in the two orthogonal directions to resist lateral loads. Further, the stronger axis of the
column should be aligned in such a way that at a joint where deeper or larger span beams meet, “strong
column-weak beam” criterion can be satisfied successfully (Bisch et al. 2012). Contrary to the other
national codes, the Indian seismic design code, IS 1893 Part 1 (2016) recommends that the structural
configuration of a building should be chosen in such a way that the fundamental periods along the two
orthogonal directions have a minimum difference of 10% of the higher value. “Bi-symmetric” build­
ings, that have equal fundamental periods in the two orthogonal directions of the building, are not
permitted according to the Indian seismic code. Although, the code does not provide any reasoning

CONTACT Yogendra Singh yogendra.eq@gmail.com Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, Roorkee, India
© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 P. GWALANI ET AL.

behind this recommendation, apparently, the intention behind such a provision, is to avoid the
“swapping of energy that may occur if the translational modes are closer to each other” (Murty
et al. 2012). Another issue could be the coupling of translational modes, due to accidental torsion. The
accidental eccentricity between the centre of mass and centre of stiffness, results in coupling of
translational and torsional modes. In case of bi-symmetric buildings (equal fundamental period in
both directions), coupling of translational modes occurs resulting in mass participation in both the
directions.
The objective of this study is to explore the effect of different proportioning of LFRS in
orthogonal directions on seismic performance of multi-story RC buildings, which are designed
according to the Indian building design codes (IS 456 2000; IS 1893 Part 1 2016; IS 13920 2016). For
this purpose, 4- and 8-story RC moment frame, and 12-story RC frame-shear wall dual system
buildings, with varying difference in the fundamental periods in orthogonal directions of the
building, are considered. In case of RC frame buildings, special moment-resisting frames (SMRF)
are used to resist the lateral loads. Whereas, in case of dual system buildings, SMRF and ductile
shear walls are used in combination to resist the lateral loads. Bidirectional incremental dynamic
analyses (BIDA) are conducted to compute the seismic capacity of three-dimensional (3D) models
of the buildings. The results of analyses are utilized to compute the collapse margin ratio (CMR) and
to evaluate the seismic fragility of the buildings. The results are discussed, aimed at establishing the
adequacy and identifying the limitations of different schemes of placement of LFRS, and of the
relevant clauses of the seismic codes.

2. Methodology
2.1. Structural Configuration of the Buildings
Four regular symmetric RC frame buildings, representing different levels of separation among the
fundamental periods of vibration in the two orthogonal directions, viz. 0%, 5%, 15%, and 40% (35% in
case of 4-story building) and three dual system (frame-shear wall) buildings representing two levels of
period separation, viz. 0% and 20% are considered to illustrate the effect of proportioning of LFRS on
seismic response. The selected frame buildings (denoted as MF1, MF2, and MF3) have identical
material properties and geometry (i.e., bay widths and story heights) but have different column cross-
sections and orientation in plan, as shown in Fig. 1a–c, respectively. The frame building denoted as
MF4 has the same material properties as the other frame buildings that have a square shaped plan
(MF1, MF2, and MF3) but a different structural configuration, as shown in Fig. 1d. All the frame
buildings are considered to be 4- and 8-story tall. In order to study the possibility of coupling of
fundamental translational modes in the two directions, an 8-story mass eccentric building (MF5), with
5% mass eccentricity (equal to accidental eccentricity, according to most of the codes (ASCE 7-16
2016; IS 1893 Part 1 2016; EN 1998-1 2004)) is also considered. The mass eccentric building has the
same member sizes and reinforcement design and detailing, as the bi-symmetric regular frame
building (MF1). The mass eccentricity is obtained by varying the floor mass linearly along the
X-direction such that the total mass of the floor remains the same, and an eccentricity of 5% of the
plan dimension, is obtained. The dual system buildings are considered to be 12-story tall. One of the
dual system buildings (DS1) (Fig. 2a) has shear walls in both the directions and is configured to have
identical periods in the two directions, whereas the other dual system building (DS2) is configured to
obtain a significant (20%) difference in the fundamental periods in the two orthogonal directions, by
providing the shear walls along one of the orthogonal directions only. In one direction (i.e., Y-
direction), frame and shear wall both resist the lateral loads while in the other direction, only frames
resist the lateral load. In this way, the building has dual system only in one direction, as shown in
Fig. 2b. The third building (DS3) has been configured to have dual system in both the directions and at
the same time to have period difference of 20%. For this purpose, the length of shear walls in the two
directions has been varied, as shown in Fig. 2c.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3

Figure 1. Plan view of a typical story of considered frame buildings.

2.2. Linear Analysis and Design

3D models of the buildings are created and analyzed in the proprietary software for structural analysis
and design of buildings – ETABS (CSI 2016). Frame elements are used to model beams and columns.
Shear walls are modelled as wide-columns. The stiffness of beam-column and beam-shear wall joints is
considered in the modelling, according to the ASCE 41-17 (2017) guidelines. The in-plane action of
RC slabs is modelled as rigid diaphragms at every floor level. The height of plinth and each story for all
the buildings is kept constant as 1.5 m and 3.3 m, respectively. The nominal concrete cube and steel
reinforcement strength is considered as 40MPa and 500MPa, respectively. The cracked section
(effective) stiffness of different RC members is assigned according to ASCE 41-17 (2017) guidelines.
The buildings are assumed to be located at a rock site (Soil Type I) in the highest seismic zone of India
(i.e., Zone V according to IS 1893 Part 1 (2016), having Zone Factor, Z = 0.36). The zone factor in the
Indian code represents median value of the effective peak ground acceleration (EPGA) obtained from
deterministic seismic hazard analysis. For the purpose of comparison with other country codes, this
may be considered as equivalent to the EPGA of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) (having
2% probability of exceedance in 50 years or an average return period of 2475 years) as 0.54 g
(=1.5 × 0.36 g) using the conversion suggested in ASCE 7-05 (2005). The gravity loads on the floors
are applied according to the provisions of IS 875 Part 1 and 2 (1987a, 1987b). The seismic design of the
buildings is carried out using the mode superposition method based on response spectrum. Contrary
to other country codes, IS 1893 Part 1 (2016) recommends a response reduction (or behaviour) factor
of 5 for both SMRF buildings and dual system buildings consisting of ductile frames and ductile shear
walls. Hence, the same response reduction factor (of 5) is used for all the considered buildings, as the
objective of the present study is not to compare the seismic performance of different structural
4 P. GWALANI ET AL.

Figure 2. Plan view of a typical story of considered dual system buildings.

systems, but to compare the effect of different periods of vibration in the orthogonal directions. For all
the buildings, except 8MF5 (the prefix “8” indicates the number of stories), the first and the second
modes involve pure translations in the X- and Y-direction, respectively. The first mode of the mass
eccentric building (8MF5) involves diagonal translation and twisting motion, while the second mode
involves pure diagonal translation. Similar to ASCE 7-16 (2016), IS 1893 (1893) also provides
a capping on the period used for estimation of design base shear, using empirical expressions for
estimation of design periods. However, the empirical expressions for estimation of design periods of
frame and dual system RC buildings, given in IS 1893 Part 1 (2016) are identical to those in EN 1998-1
(2004). In all the considered buildings, the design base shear is governed by the capping on the design
period. The numerical fundamental periods of vibration of the buildings (Tx and Ty) and their design
base shear coefficients are presented in Table 1.
The analysis and design of the buildings include P-delta effects. The effect of accidental eccentricity
is also accounted for in the analysis, which results in increased design forces for the LFRS. Frame
members are designed according to IS 456 (2000) and detailed according to provisions of IS 13920
(2016). These codes are at par with the other modern seismic design codes and include capacity design
of components, and a strong column-weak beam strength ratio of 1.4. Shear walls are also designed
and detailed according to IS 13920 (2016). Adequate horizontal reinforcement is provided to avoid
shear failure and boundary elements in the shear walls are confined. The member sizes are propor­
tioned such that to have 1% to 4% reinforcement in columns, 1% to 2.5% reinforcement in shear walls
and 0.5% to 1.5% reinforcement on each face in beams. The Indian code specifies a maximum inter-
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5

Table 1. Dynamic properties of the building models used in the study.

Fundamental period of vibration
Building model (s) Design base shear coefficient
a
Reference Story Tx Ty Period difference X Y
4MF1 4-story 1.37 1.37 0% 0.098 0.098
4MF2 1.38 1.34 5% 0.098 0.098
4MF3 1.47 1.30 15% 0.098 0.098
4MF4 1.22 1.82 35% 0.098 0.098
8MF1 8-story 2.75 2.75 0% 0.060 0.060
8MF2 2.65 2.56 5% 0.060 0.060
8MF3 2.85 2.47 15% 0.060 0.060
8MF4 2.26 3.71 40% 0.060 0.060
8MF5 2.91 2.87 1.5% 0.060 0.060
12DS1 12-story 3.13 3.13 0% 0.044 0.044
12DS2 3.81 3.09 20% 0.044 0.044
12DS3 3.52 2.86 20% 0.044 0.044
a
Period difference is round off to the closest multiple of 5.

story drift of 0.004 under un-factored design seismic loads. For the purpose of comparison with other
country codes, this limit may be considered as equivalent to an ultimate drift limit of 3% under DBE.
In the present study, the maximum ultimate inter-story drift ratio under DBE is below 2% for all the
considered buildings. The obtained member sizes are shown in Table 2.

2.3. Nonlinear Modelling

The nonlinearity in structural members is modelled using lumped plasticity approach. In beams,
uniaxial moment-rotation (M3) hinges are assigned at the two ends of the elements to model
inelasticity. The backbone curve parameters for the plastic hinges are obtained from ASCE 41-17
(2017). The energy-based degrading model (CSI 2016) is used to account for cyclic degradation effects.
The properties of this hysteresis model are obtained from Surana, Singh, and Lang (2017), which have
been duly calibrated against experimental test results for ductile beams designed and detailed accord­
ing to Indian codes IS 456 (2000) and IS 13920 (2016).
The nonlinearity in columns and shear-walls is modelled using fibre-hinge lumped plasticity
model. The columns and shear walls are modelled using elastic linear elements with nonlinearity
assumed to be lumped in a fibre hinge. At each hinge location, the cross-section is discretized into
a number of fibres, each fibre representing either concrete or steel reinforcement. Such discretization
enables interaction of axial force with biaxial bending moments, using direct integration of materials’

Table 2. Obtained member sizes of the considered building models.

Shear wall
Building model Beams Columns X Y
4MF1 300 x 400 350 × 350 – –
4MF2 300 x 400 300 × 400 – –
4MF3 300 x 400 300 × 400 – –
4MF4 300 x 400 350 × 350 – –
8MF1 300 x 400 350 × 350/300 × 300a – –
8MF2 300 x 400 300 × 500/300 × 400a – –
8MF3 300 x 400 300 × 500/300 × 400a – –
8MF4 300 x 400 400 × 400/350 × 350a – –
8MF5 300 x 400 350 × 350/300 × 300a – –
12DS1 300 x 400 400 × 400/350 × 350b 3000 × 250 3000 × 250
12DS2 300 x 400 400 × 400 – 3000 × 250
12DS3 300 x 400 400 × 400/350 × 350b 4000 × 200 3000 × 250
All dimensions are in mm.
a
Reduced column size in the upper four stories, in 8-story buildings.
b
Reduced column size in the upper four stories, in 12-story buildings.
6 P. GWALANI ET AL.

stress–strain curves. The plane section is assumed to remain planar after bending. In case of columns,
fibre-hinges are assigned at the ends of the elements, at a distance equal to half the plastic hinge length,
from the face of the connecting element (from the base, in case of the lowermost columns). The plastic
hinge length for columns is taken as half of the maximum cross-sectional dimension, which gives fairly
accurate results, even for columns subjected to bidirectional excitation (Rodrigues et al. 2012). In case
of shear walls, fibre-hinge is assigned at a distance equal to half the plastic hinge length, from the base.
Plastic hinge length for shear walls is obtained from the empirical relation proposed by Priestley, Calvi,
and Kowalsky (2007). A uniform strain distribution is assumed in the material fibres over the
considered plastic hinge length.
The stress–strain behaviour of concrete is based on the constitutive material properties proposed by
Mander, Priestley, and Park (1988). The effect of confinement due to transverse reinforcement is
considered in the stress–strain curve of concrete in the core region. The stress–strain curve of steel
reinforcement is assumed to be tri-linear, having an initial elastic behaviour, followed by strain-
hardening, and then gradual softening. The stress–strain curve of steel is assumed to be identical in
tension and compression. The cyclic deterioration effects are incorporated in the material properties
by using energy-based degrading hysteresis models (CSI 2016) for concrete and steel reinforcement.
The concrete hysteresis model utilizes an energy dissipation factor (f) that represents the ratio of area
of degraded loop to non-degraded loop. In this model, the initial loading follows the initial elastic
slope of the stress–strain curve of the concrete material. The unloading slope is directed towards
a pivot point configured on the extended initial elastic slope in such a way that the slope of the
unloading curve at the maximum compressive force is equal to half the stiffness of the elastic line. The
direction of the reloading curve depends upon the value of energy dissipation factor (f) (that varies
from 0 to 1). If the value of energy dissipation factor (f) is equal to zero, the reloading curve follows the
previous unloading curve, whereas, if the value of energy factor (f) is equal to 1, the curve is directed
towards the previous maximum displacement and is directed in between the two, for other values of
f (between 0 to 1). The degrading hysteresis model for steel utilizes hysteretic energy-based dissipation
factors (f1 and f2) and stiffness degradation parameter (s), to account for strength and stiffness
deterioration, and pinching. The energy dissipation factors, f1 and f2, represent the ratio of area of
degraded loop to non-degraded loop, for pre- and post-capping (or pre- and post-peak) deformations,
respectively. The stiffness degradation parameter, s controls the slope of the reloading and unloading
curves. The model is a peak oriented model, i.e., the unloading and the reloading curve targets the
point of maximum previous displacement. The parameters of the hysteresis models for (f) concrete
and (f1, f2, and s) reinforcement steel are calibrated with the results of the experimental tests conducted
by Bousias et al. (1995), Qiu et al. (2002), Kawashima, Watanabe, and Hayakawa (2003), and
Rodrigues et al. (2013) on RC columns under bidirectional loading. The calibration process, validated
results and generalized hysteresis parameters obtained for columns are explained in detail in a separate
study, which is currently under review. The results are not shown here for brevity and to avoid
duplication. However, the calibration of the material hysteresis model parameters (f, f1, f2, and s) for
the shear wall fibre-hinge is performed in this study, and presented in the next section.

2.3.1. Model Validation

The performance of the hysteresis model is assessed in terms of its ability to reproduce the experi­
mentally obtained force–deformation curves. For this purpose, the tests carried out on shear walls by
Dazio, Beyer, and Bachmann (2009) and Shegay et al. (2018) are used in this study. Dazio, Beyer, and
Bachmann (2009) carried out quasi-static cyclic tests on half-scale models of six wall specimens,
representative of lower part of RC shear walls in a 6-story RC building of total height 20.4 m. For the
present study, the wall test specimens designated as “WSH3” and “WSH6” in the original experimental
study are used. These specimens are representative of ductile walls with proper reinforcement
detailing according to EN 1998-1 (2004). Shegay et al. (2018) carried out tests on four half-scale test-
walls (denoted as C10, A10, A14, and A20) designed and detailed as per the provisions of NZS
3101:2006-A2 (2012) and A3 (2017), and tested at University of Auckland Structural Testing
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7

Laboratory (STL). The wall specimens A10, A14, and A20 have confining reinforcement provided
throughout the entire length of the shear wall according to the provisions of the latest New Zealand
code NZS 3101:2006-A3 (2017), while wall specimen C10 follows the provision of the NZS (2012) for
confining reinforcement in the boundary elements. The wall specimens used in the study are
characterized by different axial load ratios, longitudinal reinforcement ratios, and reinforcement
detailing. The properties of these wall specimens are provided in Table 3. Further information
about the geometry of wall specimens, reinforcement detailing and testing procedure are available
in the respective studies by Dazio, Beyer, and Bachmann (2009) and Shegay et al. (2018).
In the numerical modelling, the shear walls are modelled as cantilever wide-columns, using the data
from the experimental tests. The cross-section dimensions, height of the wall specimen and the
longitudinal reinforcement details of each wall specimen, have been replicated from the experimental
studies (Dazio, Beyer, and Bachmann 2009; Shegay et al. 2018). The stress–strain curves of the
materials are assigned corresponding to the mean experimental values. The cover and core concrete
in the cross-section at the plastic hinge location is discretized into 50 fibres, whereas each reinforce­
ment steel bar is represented by a separate fibre. The further finer discretization of concrete fibres, was
observed to produce negligible change in the results. The axial load is applied at the top of the shear
wall according to the relevant experimental details of each wall specimen. The cyclic lateral load is
applied as incremental displacement at the top of the shear wall.
Hysteretic model parameters for both the materials are obtained, iteratively, to match the experi­
mental hysteretic curves. The obtained parameters of the hysteresis model are presented in Table 4. It
is interesting to note that the same set of the parameters is able to simulate the experimental test
results, reasonably well. The previous experience of calibration of the energy-based hysteresis models

Table 3. Experimental data of shear wall specimens used in the study.

Wall dimensions Material parameters Reinforcement ratio
P Concrete Steel
Wall specimen Ag f 0 c L T H f´c fy a ρv BE(%) ρv web(%) ρh(%)
WSH3 0.058 2.00 0.15 4.52 39.2 489–601 1.54 0.54 0.25
WSH6 0.108 2.00 0.15 4.56 45.6 519–584 1.54 0.54 0.25
C10 0.092 2.25 0.20 3.50 31.4 393–543 2.70 0.52 0.5–0.7
A10 0.092 2.25 0.20 3.50 34.0 393–543 2.20 0.50 0.5–0.7
A14 0.140 2.25 0.20 3.50 42.6 393–543 1.60 0.46 0.5–0.7
A20 0.200 2.25 0.20 3.50 43.7 393–543 1.30 0.46 0.5–0.7
P = axial load; L, T and H = length, thickness and height of the wall specimen in meter; Ag = gross area of cross-section; f´c = cylinder
compressive strength of concrete in MPa; and fy = yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement in MPa; ρv BE and ρv web = long­
itudinal reinforcement provided in boundary element and web region, respectively; and ρh = transverse reinforcement.
a
Reinforcement steel bars with different diameters have different mean strength. The range of these values is presented here.

Table 4. Material degradation parameters for hysteresis model of the fibre-hinge in RC shear walls.
Material hysteresis model parameters

Concrete Steel
P
Wall specimen Ag f 0 c f f1 f2 s
WSH3 0.058 0.90 1 0.50 0
WSH6 0.108
C10 0.092
A10 0.092
A14 0.140
A20 0.200
Energy dissipation factor f, in concrete hysteresis model that controls the ratio of degraded loop to non-degraded
loop; energy dissipation factors, f1 and f2, represent the ratio of area of degraded loop to non-degraded loop, for
pre- and post-capping deformations, respectively in steel hysteresis model; and s= stiffness degradation factor
that controls the slope of the unloading and reloading curves in degrading steel hysteresis model.
8 P. GWALANI ET AL.

for columns showed that the calibration parameters depend to some extent on the axial load ratio. All
the shear walls considered in the present study, have low (<0.2) axial load ratio, typical of shear walls in
low- and mid-rise buildings. As a result, a single set of hysteretic model parameters is able to simulate
the results of all the RC shear wall specimens, having different axial load ratios and moment capacity.
Comparison of the numerically simulated response of the wall specimens with the experimental
results, is presented in Figs. 3–5, in terms of force–deformation curves, and cumulative hysteretic
energy dissipation with the number of loading cycles. It can be observed from the figures that results
obtained from the numerical modelling, match very well with the experimentally obtained hysteresis
curves through-out the cyclic loading history. There is slight under-estimation of the unloading
stiffness in the simulated hysteresis loops, at larger drifts. The pinching is accounted for, reasonably
well, and the overall energy dissipation due to hysteresis, obtained from numerical simulation,
matches quite closely with the experimental results, throughout the test cycles.
Based on the validation study presented in this section, it can be stated that the calibrated fibre-
hinge model can be used to realistically capture the inelastic load-deformation behaviour of RC ductile
shear walls in low to mid-rise buildings. The 12-story dual system buildings considered in the present
study carry an axial load ratio in the range 0–0.20 and material strength of concrete and steel is 40MPa
and 500MPa, respectively. These values are reasonably close to those used in the experimental tests,
used for calibration of the hysteresis model; and hence, are justified to be used in the present study to
model the material hysteresis behaviour of shear walls.

Figure 3. Comparison between numerical simulation and experimental results for the wall specimens – (i) WSH3, and (ii) WSH6: (a)
Cyclic load-displacement behaviour; and (b) Variation of cumulative energy dissipation with number of cycles.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 9

Figure 4. Comparison between numerical simulation and experimental results for the wall specimen – (i) C10, and (ii) A10: (a) Cyclic
load-displacement behaviour; and (b) Variation of cumulative energy dissipation with number of cycles.

2.4. Non-linear Analysis

The static capacity of the buildings is estimated using non-linear static (pushover) analysis (NSA). The
lateral load pattern to perform the pushover analysis is considered to be proportional to the fundamental
modes of the building in the two directions, which have the mass participation greater than 80%. The
objective of the pushover analysis is to obtain useful initial information about the seismic performance of
these buildings, indicated by the yield strength, over-strength (i.e., ratio of yield strength to design base
shear) and ductility (i.e., ratio of ultimate displacement to yield displacement). These parameters are
obtained from the equivalent bi-linearization of the obtained pushover curves of the buildings, according
to the method described in ASCE 41-17 (2017). The ultimate displacement is considered at which the
considered building shows collapse or instability of the structural system, whereas the yield displacement
is obtained from bi-linear idealization of the pushover curve using ASCE 41-17 (2017) method.
The dynamic capacity curves of the considered buildings are obtained using BIDA (Vamvatsikos and
Cornell 2002). In BIDA, the two horizontal components of ground motions are applied simultaneously
to the building with increasing intensity such that overall behaviour of the building can be assessed, from
elastic to inelastic range, till the global collapse. The global collapse, in case of BIDA, is identified as the
state at which a slight increase in the intensity measure (IM) of the ground motion causes an abrupt large
increase in the damage measure (DM) of the structural response. The selection of ground motions for the
performance assessment of the buildings is an important task due to the wide range of seismological and
other factors affecting it. In the present study, the set of far-field horizontal ground motions,
10 P. GWALANI ET AL.

Figure 5. Comparison between numerical simulation and experimental results for the wall specimen – (i) A14, and (ii) A20: (a) Cyclic
load-displacement behaviour; and (b) Variation of cumulative energy dissipation with number of cycles.

recommended by FEMA P695 (2009) is used. These ground motions are selected taking into account
magnitude (Mw > 6.5), source-to-site distance (Rjb = 11.1–26.4 km), site class (soft rock or stiff soil), peak
ground acceleration (PGA > 0.2 g), peak ground velocity (PGV > 15 cm/s) and the lowest usable
frequency (fl = 0.25 Hz). The vertical component of ground motions is not considered in the analysis,
in accordance with the recommendations of FEMA P695 (2009). Some of the researchers (Baker 2011;
Jalayer and Cornell 2009; Silva et al. 2019; Whittaker et al. 2011) have argued that a single set of ground
motions with successive scaling may not be suitable for the whole range of the structural response, from
elastic to collapse. They have suggested to use multiple stripes of ground motions in different ranges of
structural response. However, lack of adequate number of ground motions with desired characteristics is
a big hurdle in implementation of the multi-stripe method. Further, the focus of the present study is on
estimation of relative collapse performance of the chosen buildings under similar seismic hazard
conditions. Therefore, selection of a single set, compatible with the MCE level is reasonable, as the
collapse is usually caused due to large magnitude earthquakes (Baker 2013).
In the present study, Sa,avg (0.2 T-3 T, 5%) computed as the geometric mean of spectral accelera­
tions from 5% damped response spectrum of the ground motion at an interval of 0.01s in the period
range of 0.2 T – 3 T, has been used as the scaling parameter and the intensity measure (IM). It is
important to consider that the structural models investigated in the present study have different
periods of vibration along the two principal directions of the building. Therefore, the arithmetic mean
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 11

of the periods corresponding to the fundamental translational modes in the two orthogonal directions
has been used for computing Sa,avg (0.2 T-3 T, 5%). In order to scale the ground motions, both the
horizontal components of bidirectional ground-motion records are multiplied with a constant factor,
and the geometric mean of the two Sa,avg (0.2 T-3 T, 5%) of individual components, has been used to
represent the IM. The maximum of the peak inter-story drift ratio (θmax) obtained throughout the
building height is chosen as the DM. A Rayleigh damping of 5% is applied corresponding to the first
mode and the mode comprising 90% of cumulative mass participation. For each ground motion
record pair, two analyses are carried out by interchanging the application of the two components along
the two orthogonal directions of the building.
The median seismic collapse capacity (the value at which 50% of the ground motions have caused
collapse of the considered building) obtained from BIDA is utilized to compute the CMR and to
construct the collapse fragility curves of the considered buildings, using FEMA P695 (2009) metho­
dology. In addition to the median, variability of the seismic collapse capacity is also required for
fragility analysis. The total variability in the fragility analysis consists of the uncertainty in the
analytical modelling (βM) and variability related to ground motion, known as record-to-record
variability (βRTR). Considering the two uncertainties to be independent, these can be combined
using square root of sum of squares (SRSS) method. The record-to-record variability (βRTR) in this
study is obtained directly from BIDA. In the absence of specific estimate of modelling uncertainty (βM)
in the context of Indian buildings, a value of 0.5 from the available literature (Haselton and Deierlein
2008; Liel et al. 2009) on the United States building database is used.

2.4.1. Estimation of Seismic Demand

For all the buildings, the CMR and probability of collapse is computed at MCE level demand (2% in
50 years or return period of 2475 years). The CMR of the building is defined as the ratio of median
collapse capacity (Sa,avg)C to the seismic demand (Sa,avg)D of building, at the MCE. It is to be noted that
in the present study Sa,avg (0.2 T-3 T, 5%) is used as the IM in place of the conventionally used
parameter, Sa(T). Use of Sa,avg minimizes the effect of spectral shape of the ground motions used to
estimate the collapse capacity (Eads, Miranda, and Lignos 2015, 2016), but it cannot be obtained
directly from the design codes, and it is site and building (period) specific. To consider a uniform level
of demand, a far-field site at ‘Shillong’ in Zone V of India, is selected. The probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis (PSHA) for the site is carried out in the open source software: OpenQuake (Silva et al. 2014).
For carrying out PSHA, the source model of Indian region developed by Nath and Thingbaijam (2012)
and implemented in OpenQuake by GEM (Ackerley 2020) is used. Based on the characteristics of the
site, NGA West 2 ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) of Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014)
and Chiou and Youngs (2014) are used for hazard analysis. Figure 6a presents the uniform hazard
spectrum (UHS) for the site obtained from PSHA, along with the response spectrum specified in the
Indian code, and used for design of buildings. It can be seen that the UHS matches with the code
spectrum at the periods of the 4-story frame buildings, and is lower than the code spectrum at the
periods of 8-storey frame and 12-story dual system buildings.
The conditional mean spectra (CMS) (Baker 2011) at the site are constructed corresponding to
periods of 1.5 s (for 4-story frame buildings), 3.0 s (for 8-story frame buildings), and 3.0 and 3.5 s (for
12-story dual system buildings). The disaggregated mean values of magnitude, source to site distance,
and epsilon ‘ε’ (i.e., no. of standard deviations by which lnSa at a given period of a site differs from its
predicted mean value derived from GMPEs) for period 1.5 s are 7.8, 155 km and 3.10, respectively and
for periods 3.0 and 3.5 s are 7.8, 25 km and 0.90, respectively. To construct the CMS, the value of ε at
other periods is obtained from the cross-correlation coefficients developed by Baker and Jayaram
(2008) for PEER NGA dataset. Figure 6b presents the CMS for the site at the considered periods. The
value of seismic demand for each building, in terms of Sa,avg (0.2 T-3 T, 5%) is obtained from the
corresponding CMS. This method of obtaining Sa,avg (0.2 T-3 T, 5%) is an indirect method, but
a reasonable alternative (Kohrangi, Kotha, and Bazzurro 2018) in absence of attenuation relationships
in terms of Sa,avg.
12 P. GWALANI ET AL.

Figure 6. Seismic demand at the selected site: (a) Comparison of UHS obtained from PSHA with design spectrum of code; and (b)
CMS corresponding to the periods of the considered buildings.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Static Capacity Curves
Figures 7–9 present the bilinearized static capacity (pushover) curves for the considered buildings in
the two orthogonal directions. The values of yield spectral acceleration, over-strength and ductility
ratio of the considered building models are summarized in Table 5. Mass eccentric building (8MF5) is
an irregular building that has coupling of modes. The pushover analysis is not valid for such buildings.
Hence, pushover analysis is not performed for this building.
It can be observed from Figs. 7 and 8, that the capacity curves of the three building models (MF1,
MF2, and MF3) having square plan shape are close for a given building height, as the buildings have
been designed for identical base shear coefficients. On the other hand, the building MF4 having
a rectangular plan, has capacity curves which are significantly different not only in the two directions,
but also from the other buildings of the same height, despite that this building has also been designed
for the same design base shear coefficient. This difference can be attributed to the large difference in
the building stiffness in the two directions and from the other buildings. It is interesting to note that
the stiffness of the building is not only governing the period of the building, but it is also influencing
the over-strength and ductility ratio. However, it is interesting to note that the difference in the
ductility ratio does not indicate a proportionate difference in the inelastic displacement capacity. The
difference in the ductility ratio is mainly due to the difference in the yield displacement.

Figure 7. Comparison of static capacity (pushover) curves of the 4-story frame buildings.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 13

Figure 8. Comparison of static capacity (pushover) curves of the 8-story frame buildings.

Figure 9. Comparison of static capacity (pushover) curves of the 12-storey dual system buildings.

In case of the 12-story dual system buildings (Fig. 9, Table 5), the yield acceleration, over-strength
and ductility ratios of 12DS2 building having shear walls oriented in one direction, are close to the
building 12DS1, in the direction of orientation of shear walls (along Y-direction) while differ in the
other direction. As expected, the dual system building 12DS3, having structural configuration different
than 12DS1 and 12DS2, has static capacity parameters different from 12DS1 and 12DS2 in both the
directions. The yield strength capacity and ductility ratio is more than 12DS1 in the longer (X)
direction while these are less than the corresponding parameters of 12DS1, in the other direction.

Table 5. Static capacity curve parameters of the studied buildings.

Yield Spectral Acceleration Over-strength Ductility
Building type Say x Say y Ωx Ωy µx µy
4MF1 0.21 0.21 1.68 1.68 2.05 2.05
4MF2 0.20 0.20 1.60 1.60 2.25 2.16
4MF3 0.18 0.20 1.44 1.60 2.14 2.38
4MF4 0.18 0.17 1.44 1.36 2.69 1.69
8MF1 0.12 0.12 1.56 1.56 1.76 1.76
8MF2 0.11 0.11 1.43 1.43 1.97 1.93
8MF3 0.11 0.12 1.43 1.56 1.77 1.90
8MF4 0.11 0.09 1.43 1.17 2.28 1.69
12DS1 0.08 0.08 1.23 1.23 2.34 2.34
12DS2 0.08 0.08 1.32 1.25 2.50 2.41
12DS3 0.09 0.06 1.50 1.08 2.25 2.19
The values in the table are rounded off to two digits after the decimal.
14 P. GWALANI ET AL.

3.2. Seismic Capacity and Collapse Margin Ratio

Figures 10–12 present the dynamic capacity curves (or IDA curves) of the buildings obtained from
BIDA. In the figures, the grey lines depict the individual dynamic capacity curves for each ground
motion record pair (22 curves in case of bi-symmetric buildings and 44 curves in case of all others).
The figure also shows the median (50th percentile) and 16th and 84th percentile capacity curves.
It can be observed from Fig. 10 that the median collapse capacity of the three 4-story frame
buildings with square plan (i.e., 4MF1, 4MF2, and 4MF3) is almost equal. On the other hand, the
median collapse capacity of building 4MF4 (having rectangular plan) is less than that of the other
frame building models. The same pattern can also be observed for the 8-story frame buildings (i.e.,
8MF1, 8MF2, 8MF3, and 8MF4), from Fig. 11. Most interestingly, the mass eccentric building (8MF5)
also has the collapse capacity close to that for the regular counterpart building. This can be attributed
to the fact that all the buildings have been designed for an accidental eccentricity of 5%, according to
the seismic design code guidelines, which happens to be equal to the actually considered eccentricity in
the mass eccentric building. It can be seen from Fig. 12, that there is some reduction in the collapse
capacity of the dual system building (12DS2) having 20% difference in fundamental periods in the
orthogonal directions and shear walls oriented in one direction alone, in comparison with the bi-
symmetric dual system building 12DS1. The collapse capacity of the dual system building 12DS3 (with
20% period difference) matches closely with the bi-symmetric dual system building 12DS1.
The median collapse capacity obtained from BIDA, and the seismic demand from the site and
building specific CMS, both estimated in terms of Sa,avg (0.2 T-3 T, 5%), are presented in Table 6. The
table also presents the computed CMR of the considered buildings. The CMR serves as a parameter for
comparing the relative collapse resistance of building models at MCE level demand. Comparison of
the estimated CMRs indicates that the collapse resistivity of all the considered frame buildings is
almost equal (difference being less than 8%). This is true even for the rectangular plan building MF4

Figure 10. Dynamic capacity curves of the 4-story frame buildings. (The grey lines represent the dynamic capacity curves of
individual ground motions.).
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 15

Figure 11. Dynamic capacity curves of the 8-story frame buildings. (The grey lines represent the dynamic capacity curves of
individual ground motions.).

Figure 12. Dynamic capacity curves of the 12-story dual system buildings. (The grey lines represent the dynamic capacity curves of
individual ground motions.).

having relatively large difference in the capacity curves, and the mass eccentric building 8MF5. This is
due to a proportionate change in the MCE demand depending on the period of vibration. The CMR of
the dual system buildings 12DS1 and 12DS3 is almost equal despite having different structural
configurations. The CMR of 12DS2 building with shear walls oriented in one direction alone, is
around 12% less than bi-symmetric dual system building.
16 P. GWALANI ET AL.

Table 6. Collapse margin ratio and collapse probability of the considered buildings.
Building Median seismic capacity Seismic demand Collapse margin Record-to-record Probability of
type (Sa,avg)C in g (Sa,avg)D in g ratio (CMR) variability (βRTR) collapse at MCE
4MF1 0.41 0.14 2.93 0.19 2
4MF2 0.40 0.14 2.82 0.17 3
4MF3 0.40 0.14 2.84 0.19 3
4MF4 0.36 0.12 3.00 0.17 2
8MF1 0.14 0.06 2.33 0.22 8
8MF2 0.14 0.07 2.03 0.25 9
8MF3 0.14 0.07 2.01 0.25 9
8MF4 0.14 0.06 2.34 0.26 8
8MF5 0.13 0.06 2.17 0.24 7
12DS1 0.15 0.05 2.88 0.27 3
12DS2 0.12 0.05 2.52 0.23 5
12DS3 0.14 0.05 2.78 0.23 3
The values in the table are rounded off to two digits after the decimal.

Figure 13. Collapse fragility curves of considered buildings.

3.3. Seismic Fragility

The seismic fragility curves for the considered buildings are shown in Fig. 13. The fragility curves
depict the probability of collapse P[C|Sa,avg] of the buildings given the IM (Sa,avg (0.2 T-3 T, 5%)).
The record-to-record variability estimated for these buildings is presented in Table 6. The IM in
Fig. 13 is normalized by the value corresponding to the MCE. Such normalization of the IM allows
a direct comparison of the fragility curves for different buildings, having different periods and
hence different Sa,avg (0.2 T-3 T, 5%) values corresponding to a given seismic intensity. The
collapse probability of the considered buildings corresponding to MCE level demand is presented
in Table 6. It can be seen that the probability of collapse of buildings with different arrangement of
LFRS, but equal height, is almost the same, when subjected to the MCE demand, except for
building 12DS2 having shear walls along one direction alone, which shows relatively higher
collapse probability, as compared to the counterpart buildings having shear walls oriented in
both the orthogonal directions.

4. Conclusions
Seismic collapse margin and collapse fragility of RC buildings with different structural configurations,
and different ratios of lateral stiffness in the two orthogonal directions of the building, have been
studied using BIDA. The buildings have been designed for the current Indian codes, which are at par
with other major national codes, incorporating capacity design and ductile detailing. Energy-based
degrading hysteresis models of RC shear walls have been calibrated with the experimental results for
planar shear walls, available in literature. A set of material hysteresis parameters resulting in close
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 17

match with the experimental results have been obtained. The hysteresis models for other structural
members viz., beams and columns, calibrated elsewhere using experimental results, have been used in
estimating the nonlinear response of the considered frame and frame-shear wall buildings, up to
collapse.
Comparison of the CMR and probability of collapse at MCE, shows that seismic performance of
buildings with different proportioning of columns and shear walls in the two orthogonal directions,
resulting in different periods of vibration in the two directions, is close, as long as the buildings of
a given height are designed for the same level of hazard. The only exception is the building having
shear walls oriented along one direction alone, which shows relatively higher collapse probability as
compared to the counterpart dual system buildings having shear walls oriented along both the
orthogonal directions. Also, the properly designed mass eccentric building (with 5% mass eccentricity)
resulting in coupling of modes in the orthogonal directions has its performance close to the regular bi-
symmetric building. Therefore, the provision of IS 1893 Part 1 (2016) for a mandatory difference of
10% in the fundamental periods in the two orthogonal directions is un-necessary. In fact, the
symmetry of stiffness and period in the two orthogonal directions of the buildings, as recommended
in other national codes and guidelines, result in the best seismic performance (within the obtained
close margin of difference) of the building.
The present study has been carried out using 3D models of symmetric RC frame and dual system
buildings. The real buildings can be more complex and irregular. However, the insight obtained from
the present study and the conclusions are expected to be valid for those buildings, as well.

Acknowledgments
The first author’s fellowship was financially supported by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government
of India (New Delhi). The support received from the ministry is gratefully acknowledged.

ORCID
Payal Gwalani http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0171-2758

References
Ackerley, N. About the IndiaOpenPSHA. Accessed January 30, 2020. https://github.com/nackerley/indian-subcontinent
-psha .
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2005. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI
7-05. Reston, Virginia.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2016. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI
7-16. Reston, Virginia.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2017. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, ASCE/SEI
41-17. Reston, Virginia.
Baker, J. W. 2011. Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground-motion selection. Journal of Structural Engineering 137:
322–31. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215.
Baker, J. W. 2013. Trade-offs in ground motion selection techniques for collapse assessment of structures. Proceedings of
Vienna Congress on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013 (VEESD 2013),
Vienna, Austria.
Baker, J. W., and N. Jayaram. 2008. Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models.
Earthquake Spectra 24: 299–317. doi: 10.1193/1.2857544.
Bisch, P., E. Carvalho, H. Degee, P. Fajfar, M. Fardis, P. Franchin, M. Kreslin, A. Pecker, P. Pinto, A. Plumier, et al..
2012. Eurocode 8: Seismic design of buildings worked examples. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union.
Bousias, S. N., G. Verzeletti, M. N. Fardis, and E. Gutierrez. 1995. Load path effects in column biaxial bending with axial
loads. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 121 (5): 596–605. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1995)121:5(596).
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). 1893. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1:
General provisions and buildings (Sixth revision), IS 1893 Part 1. New Delhi, India.
18 P. GWALANI ET AL.

Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). 1987a. Indian standard – Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for
buildings and structures (Dead loads), IS 875 Part 1. New Delhi, India.
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). 1987b. Indian standard – Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for
buildings and structures (Live Loads), IS 875 Part 2. New Delhi, India.
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). 2000. Indian Standard – Plain and reinforced concrete, Code of practice, IS 456. New
Delhi, India.
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). 2016a. Ductile design and detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to
seismic forces – Code of practice – IS 13920. New Delhi, India.
Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia. 2014. NGA west 2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of
PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 30: 1087–115. doi: 10.1193/
062913EQS175M.
Chiou, B. S. J., and R. R. Youngs. 2014. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal
component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 30 (3): 1117–53. doi: 10.1193/
072813EQS219M.
CSI. ETABS. 2016. Integrated building design software. Version 16.2.1. Berkeley, California: Computers and Structures Inc.
Dazio, A., K. Beyer, and H. Bachmann. 2009. Quasi-static cyclic tests and plastic hinge analysis of RC structural walls.
Engineering Structures 31 (7): 1556–71. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.018.
Eads, L., E. Miranda, and D. G. Lignos. 2015. Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk
assessment. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 44: 2057–73. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2575.
Eads, L., E. Miranda, and D. G. Lignos. 2016. Spectral shape metrics and structural collapse potential. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics 45: 1643–59. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2739.
Eurocode 8. 2004. Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings, BS EN 1998-1. Brussels: CEN.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Quantification of seismic performance factors, FEMA P695.
Washington, DC.
Haselton, C. B., and G. G. Deierlein. 2008. Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete
moment-frame buildings. PEER Report 2007/08, Pacific Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley.
Jalayer, F., and C. Cornell. 2009. Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic
assessments. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 38 (8): 951–72. doi: 10.1002/eqe.876.
Kawashima, K., G. Watanabe, and R. Hayakawa. 2003. Seismic performance of RC bridge columns subjected to bilateral
excitation. Proceedings of 35th Joint Meeting, Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, Tsukuba Science City, Japan.
Kohrangi, M., S. R. Kotha, and P. Bazzurro. 2018. Ground-motion models for average spectral acceleration in a period
range: Direct and indirect methods. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 16 (1): 45–65. doi: 10.1007/s10518-017-0216-5.
Liel, A. B., C. B. Haselton, G. G. Deierlein, and J. W. Baker. 2009. Incorporating modelling uncertainties in the
assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Structural Safety 31: 197–211. doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.002.
Mander, J. B., M. J. Priestley, and R. Park. 1988. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of
Structural Engineering 114 (8): 1804–26. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).
Murty, C. V., R. Goswani, A. Vijayanarayanan, and V. V. Mehta. 2012. Some concepts in earthquake behaviour of
buildings. Gujarat: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority.
Nath, S. K., and K. K. S. Thingbaijam. 2012. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of India. Seismological Research
Letters 83 (1): 135–49. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.83.1.135.
Priestley, M. J. N., G. M. Calvi, and M. J. Kowalsky. 2007. Displacement based seismic design of structures. Pavia: IUSS
Press.
Qiu, F., W. Li, P. Pan, and J. Qian. 2002. Experimental test on RC columns under biaxial quasi-static loading. Engineering
Structures 24 (4): 419–28. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00108-0.
Rodrigues, H., A. Dias Arede, H. Varum, and A. Costa. 2013. Experimental evaluation of rectangular reinforced concrete
column behaviour under biaxial cyclic loading. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 42: 239–59. doi:
10.1002/eqe.2205.
Rodrigues, H., H. Varum, A. Arêde, and A. Costa. 2012. Comparative efficiency analysis of different nonlinear modelling
strategies to simulate the biaxial response of RC columns. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 11 (4):
553–66. doi: 10.1007/s11803-012-0141-1.
Shegay, A. V., C. J. Motter, K. J. Elwood, R. S. Henry, D. E. Lehman, and L. N. Lowes. 2018. Impact of axial load on the
seismic response of rectangular walls. Journal of Structural Engineering 144 (8): 04018124. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0002122.
Silva, V., S. Akkar, J. Baker, P. Bazzurro, J. M. Castro, H. Crowley, M. Dolsek, C. Galasso, S. Lagomarsino, R. Monteiro,
et al.. 2019. Current challenges and future trends in analytical fragility and vulnerability modeling. Earthquake Spectra
35 (4): 1927–52. doi: 10.1193/042418EQS101O.
Silva, V., H. Crowley, M. Pagani, D. Monelli, and R. Pinho. 2014. Development of the OpenQuake engine, the global
earthquake model’s open-source software for seismic risk assessment. Natural Hazards 72 (3): 1409–27. doi: 10.1007/
s11069-013-0618-x.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 19

Standards New Zealand (NZS). 2004. Structural design actions - Part 5: Earthquake actions - New Zealand, NZS 1170-5.
Wellington, New Zealand.
Standards New Zealand (NZS). 2012. Concrete structures standard Part 1 - The design of concrete structures
(Amendment No. 2), NZS 3101:2006. Wellington, New Zealand.
Standards New Zealand (NZS). 2017. Concrete structures standard Part 1 - The design of concrete structures
(Amendment No. 3), NZS 3101:2006. Wellington, New Zealand.
Surana, M., Y. Singh, and D. H. Lang. 2017. Seismic characterization and vulnerability of building stock in hilly regions.
Natural Hazards Review 19 (1): 04017024. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000275.
Vamvatsikos, D., and C. A. Cornell. 2002. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
31: 491–514. doi: 10.1002/eqe.141.
Whittaker, A., G. Atkinson, J. W. Baker, J. Bray, D. Grant, R. Hamburger, C. B. Haselton, and P. Somerville. 2011.
Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses. NIST GCR-11-917-15,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, United States.