## 4 Seismic Fragility Assessment Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Analytical** & **Component** & **Length** & **Axial Load** & \(\varsigma_{\text{MT}}\) & \(\hat{\varsigma}_{\text{CT}}\) & **ACMR** & **Acceptance** & **(I)/(G)** & **Pass/Fail** & **Representative** & **Acceptance** & **(G)/(I)** & **Pass/Fail** \\
**Model** & **Wall** & **(m)** & **Ratio** & \(\varsigma_{\text{MT}}\) & \(\hat{\varsigma}_{\text{CT}}\) & **(I)** & **(I)** & **(I)** & **(I)** & **(I)** & **(I)** & **(I)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Model A} & R1 & 2.5 & 0.3 & 0.21 & 0.42 & 2.02 & 1.59 & 1.27 & \multirow{4}{*}{**Pass**} & \multirow{4}{*}{2.03} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.97} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} \\  & **R2** & **2.5** & **0.3** & **0.21** & **0.42** & **2.03** & **1.62** & **1.26** & & & & \\  & T1 & 9 & 0.15 & 0.21 & 0.52 & 2.53 & 1.56 & 1.62 & \multirow{4}{*}{**Pass**} & \multirow{4}{*}{2.03} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.96} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} \\  & T2 & 3 & 0.15 & 0.21 & 0.48 & 2.43 & 1.62 & 1.50 & & & & \\  & R3 & 3 & 0.15 & 0.21 & 0.41 & 2.25 & 1.62 & 1.39 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Model B} & R1 & 2.5 & 0.3 & 0.12 & 0.29 & 2.42 & 1.56 & 1.55 & & & & \\  & **R2** & **2.5** & **0.3** & **0.12** & **0.28** & **2.36** & **1.59** & **1.48** & & & & \\  & T1 & 9 & 0.15 & 0.12 & 0.38 & 3.53 & 1.59 & 2.22 & \multirow{4}{*}{**Pass**} & \multirow{4}{*}{2.36} & \multirow{4}{*}{2.02} & \multirow{4}{*}{1.17} & \multirow{4}{*}{-} \\  & T2 & 3.5 & 0.15 & 0.12 & 0.35 & 3.53 & 1.59 & 2.22 & & & & \\  & R3 & 3.5 & 0.15 & 0.12 & 0.24 & 2.42 & 1.59 & 1.52 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Model C} & R1 & **2.5** & **0.3** & **0.15** & **0.35** & **2.28** & **1.69** & **1.35** & & & & \\  & R2 & 2.5 & 0.3 & 0.15 & 0.33 & 2.19 & 1.59 & 1.37 & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & T1 & 9 & 0.1 & 0.15 & 0.50 & 3.30 & 1.66 & 1.99 & **Pass** & 2.28 & 2.23 & 1.02 & - \\ \cline{1-1}  & T2 & **4** & 0.1 & 0.15 & 0.45 & 3.13 & 1.73 & 1.81 & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & R3 & **4** & 0.1 & 0.15 & 0.35 & 2.33 & 1.56 & 1.49 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Summary of collapse performance evaluation for analytical models designed for the shear force amplification factor = 1.2. The wall with the highest collapse probability in each wall group model has 2.5 m length and 30% axial force ratio from the observation of Model A, B, and C. In other words, it was found that the component walls with a high risk of collapse are short walls with large axial forces. This is supposed to be the result of the predominant effect of the compression failure at the wall boundary region, rather than shear failure. ACMR is examined for individual models as well as the performance group comprised of all the three models in comparison with the FEMA P695 criteria ACMR\({}_{10\%}\) and ACMR\({}_{20\%}\), respectively. In Table 11, it is observed that the lowest ratio of ACMR over ACMR\({}_{20\%}\) in each wall group model is obtained for the wall with the highest collapse probability, e.g., R2 in Model A. It is observed that the ACMR\({}_{20\%}\) criteria corresponding to the 20% collapse probability are met for all of the three wall group models. When three wall group models are grouped as a single performance group, the acceptance  
Figure 15: Seismic fragility curves for individual component wall based on governing failure modes. criteria \(\text{ACMR}_{10\%}\) corresponding to the 10% collapse probability should be met for the average ACMR. After identifying the ACMR of the most vulnerable wall in each wall group model as a representative ACMR, three ACMRs are averaged and compared with the \(\text{ACMR}_{10\%}\) acceptance criteria. As shown in the last row of Table 11, the performance group satisfies the \(\text{ACMR}_{10\%}\) acceptance criteria. Table 12 summarizes performance evaluation results for the performance group designed using different shear force amplification factors 1.0, 1.2 and 1.5 to the design shear force considering record-to-record variability. The same procedure and criteria as used in Tables 10 and 11 are used in the performance evaluation.