Fragility curves by Ahmad et al. (2010)

[gulsah olgun]

Dear Admin,

While I was looking over the fragility functions in the OQ physical vulnerability library and I realized a discrepancy in those by Ahmad et al. (2010). Fragility functions by this study group are classified based on structural parameters of height, ductility and regularity or irregularity situation (in elevation). I have compared the fragility curves for irregular and regular structures (all other parameters are same) as seen below.

As you can see regular structures are looking more prone to earthquake. I did the same comparison for each functions by them, the results are same. Although I could not reach out the reference paper, I checked with the given web link in the OQ vulnerability library and the function parameters seem to be correct. 

Do you think there might be a problem with those functions?

Thank you !

[Luís Martins]

Good morning,

Thank you for your message. Following your question I searched in publication (you can find it here) and I also confirmed that the values in the OQ-platform are the ones suggested by the authors.

The values in the platform have simply been ported from the report, for further information I would probably suggest contacting the authors directly.

Let me know if you have any further question.

Sincerely
L. Martins  

[gulsah olgun]

Thank you so much for your reply! I reached the publication you sent but there are no details about the buildings in that other than the basic information. I could not reach the original paper which is, ' Analytical fragility functions for reinforced concrete and masonry buildings and building aggregates (N. Ahmad, H. Crowley, and R. Pinho, 2010) - UPAV-Internal Report'. Maybe there is some further information in this one.

I will follow your suggestion and let you know if I can make it out.

Thank you, have nice day!