Seismic Risk Analysis of Industrial Concrete Structures: A Case Study of an Old Reinforced Concrete Building with Shear Wall

J. Civil Eng. Mater.App. 2025 (September); 9(3): 145-153 ························································································· 145 Journal of Civil Engineering and Materials Application http://jcema.comJournal home page: Received: 05 May 2025 • Revised: 22 June 2025 • Accepted: 30 July 2025 doi: 10.22034/jcema.2025.234170 Seismic Risk Analysis of Industrial Concrete Structures: A Case Study of an Old Reinforced Concrete Building with Shear Wall Sasan Motaghed 1*, Nasrollah Eftekhari 2, Heshmatollah Mahmoodian 3, Somayeh Dehdari 4 1 Associate Prof., Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran. 2 Assistant Prof., Faculty of Technology and Mining, Yasouj University, Choram, Iran. 3 Lorestan National University of Skills, Khorramabad, Iran. 4 Associate prof., Faculty of Natural Resources, Behbahan Khatam Alanbia University of Technology, Behbahan, Iran. *Correspondence should be addressed to Sasan Motaghed, Associate Prof., Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran. Email: [email protected] Copyright © 2025, Sasan Motaghed. This is an open access paper distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.Journal of Civil Engineering and Materials Applicationis published by (ISNet); Journal p-ISSN 2676-332X; Journal e-ISSN 2588-2880. 1. INTRODUCTION etween 1963 and 1974 Iran underwent major structural transformations in its economy that profoundly influenced the nation’s industrial development. During these years, reforms in the agricultural sector disrupted traditional production systems, resulting in a mass migration of rural laborers to urban centers. This young and available workforce provided a cheap and efficient labor base that contributed significantly to emerging assembly industries and large-scale manufacturing. B ABSTRACT Iran's industrial growth in the 1960s and 1970s was accompanied by the development of industrial facilities that often lacked comprehensive seismic codes at that time. This study presents a seismic risk analysis for a two-story concrete building with shear wall that constructed during this period. Seismic hazard analysis was conducted using both probabilistic and deterministic approaches, employing spectral models and validated attenuation relationships. Subsequently, vulnerability assessment, debris volume, and potential casualties from earthquakes at various intensity levels were determined using fragility curves based on the HAZUS methodology. The results indicate that during severe earthquakes, the probability of damage is very high, with debris volume ranging from 8 to 118 tons, although this debris would not block surrounding pathways. Casualty estimates for different earthquakes vary from less than one to 8 fatalities. While this building is weaker compared to contemporary structures, it demonstrates acceptable performance. This study highlights the importance of considering seismic risk and post-earthquake crisis management in old industrial buildings. Keywords: Seismic hazard analysis; reinforced concrete shear wall; seismic vulnerability; exposure; debris J. Civil Eng. Mater.App. 2025 (September); 9(3): 145-153 ························································································· 146 Simultaneously, the rise in oil prices and the expansion of oil extraction and exports became the principal source of funding for extensive industrial investments. The injection of substantial financial resources made possible the rapid development of heavy industries and major infrastructure projects. Between 1968 and 1973, the share of the industrial and mining sectors in the national income grew considerably, rising from approximately 480 billion rials to 22%. This industrial expansion led to the emergence and growth of heavy and infrastructural industries, including the Esfahan Steel Complex, machinery and aluminum plants in Arak, the machine manufacturing and tractor production industries in Tabriz, and several industrial complexes along the northern coast of the Persian Gulf. These projects were typically implemented with the participation and investment of Western countries and corporations, which played a crucial role in accelerating Iran’s industrialization process [1]. This period is regarded as one of the key phases in Iran’s economic transformation due to its industrial boom and significant capital investments, which laid the groundwork for sustained growth in subsequent decades. Concurrently, rural migrants actively participated in urban industries, particularly in assembly-line production, thereby contributing to the manufacturing of domestic industrial goods. The economic growth fueled by oil revenues enhanced the government’s capacity to invest in infrastructure and heavy industry, shaping the foundation of Iran’s industrialization in a profound and enduring manner. Following the devastating earthquake on September 1, 1962 (10 Shahrivar 1341), which struck the Boein Zahra region with a magnitude of 7.2 and caused approximately 12,000 fatalities, Iran drafted its first seismic code. As a consequence, in 1964, the Plan and Budget Organization published a report titled “Provisional Code for the Protection of Buildings Against Earthquakes.” Subsequently, in September 1967, the Office of Building Studies and Standards within the Ministry of Housing formed a committee that issued the “Building Safety Code Against Earthquakes.” This code consisted of two chapters: the first addressed masonry structures, while the second presented guidelines for evaluating the seismic resistance of buildings. According to this document, only structures exceeding three stories or 11 meters in height, with steel or reinforced concrete frames, were permitted. In 1969, the code became a mandatory directive published by the Plan and Budget Organization, and it was gradually revised and expanded over time. The first official edition of the code, titled “Code for the Design of Buildings Against Earthquake,” was released in 1987 as Iranian Standard No. 2800, developed in collaboration with the Institute of Standards and Industrial Research of Iran. After approval by the Council of Ministers in 1988, it was mandated for implementation across governmental and municipal agencies. Following the catastrophic Rudbar and Manjil earthquakes in 1990, awareness of the necessity to enforce this standard increased significantly [2]. This progressive process of developing seismic design codes in Iran represents a milestone in the advancement of earthquake-resistant structural design, initiated after the Boein Zahra earthquake and subsequently refined into more comprehensive and specialized standards. Therefore, prior to the 1980s, Iran’s seismic codes had little practical influence on structural design and construction practices. Moreover, most industrial buildings from the studied period were designed and built by foreign companies and specialists, making it unlikely that Iranian seismic regulations were considered in their design. In this paper, the seismic risk of a reinforced concrete-framed industrial office building, designed and constructed by a foreign contractor in 1971, is evaluated. To this end, site-specific seismic hazard analyses were conducted using both deterministic and probabilistic methods, followed by seismic vulnerability assessment using appropriate fragility curves to estimate building performance under different earthquake intensity levels — including deterministic, minor, design-level, and severe events. Based on the vulnerability and damage analysis results, the potential debris volume and casualty estimates were obtained using the HAZUS methodology. J. Civil Eng. Mater.App. 2025 (September); 9(3): 145-153 ························································································· 147 2. MTHODOLOGY 2.1. Seismic Hazard Analysis The studied building is a two-story structure located at coordinates 30°45′40″ N and 49°58′47″ E. The building has a reinforced concrete frame, with a total floor area of 1,400 square meters and a height of 7 meters. Constructed in 1971, it is classified as having a low level of compliance with modern seismic design codes. The building is considered to be regular in plan and elevation, and the effects of infill walls on structural behavior have been neglected. The building’s location is shown in Figure 1. As illustrated, four active faults are situated at relatively short distances from the site. Figure 1. Site location, topographic conditions, and surrounding faults in the study area. The uniform hazard spectra for severe, design, and minor earthquakes at the administrative building site are presented in Figure 2. The analysis was performed using the OpenQuake software and ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) developed by Ghasemi et al. (2009), Chiou and Youngs (2008), Zhao et al. (2006), Akkar and Cagnan (2010), and Akkar et al. (2014) [3-7]. As illustrated, the spectral acceleration values reach up to 1.8 g for severe earthquakes, 1.0 g for design-level earthquakes, and 0.1 g for minor earthquakes. Figure 2. Uniform hazard spectra for deterministic, severe, design-level, and minor earthquakes at the building site. 0.033 0.082 0.101 0.103 0.092 0.085 0.054 0.030 0.025 0.007 0.426 0.857 1.0101.010 0.937 0.876 0.641 0.446 0.335 0.142 0.734 1.510 1.780 1.800 1.680 1.590 1.220 0.870 0.665 0.299 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 SA(g) Period(T) office building APE=0.1 APE=0.0021 APE=0.004 J. Civil Eng. Mater.App. 2025 (September); 9(3): 145-153 ························································································· 148 Figure 3. Uniform hazard spectrum based on the ground motion prediction equation Figure 4. Fragility curves and damage levels for deterministic, severe, design, and minor earthquakes at the management building site. Given the proximity of active faults near the site, deterministic seismic hazard analysis was conducted considering four fault activation scenarios at the shortest distances to the site. The maximum spectral acceleration reached about 1.6g, which is lower than that for the severe earthquake scenario. Most refinery buildings have fundamental vibration periods less than 0.5 seconds, so the seismic risk to these buildings can be significant. For seismic risk analysis, three components are essential: hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. The seismic hazard for the site was detailed earlier. Vulnerability was assessed via fragility curves, shown in Figure 3 [8]. From these curves, the spectral acceleration at 0.3 seconds (SA(0.3)) is extracted. Based on SA(0.3), the probabilities of low, moderate, extensive, and complete damage levels for the administrative building under different earthquake scenarios—deterministic, severe, design, and minor—were derived and summarized in Table 1. This approach enables quantitative estimation of the building's damage probabilities and informs decision-making on risk mitigation, retrofitting, and emergency management strategies. It highlights the importance of considering local fault proximity, realistic spectral demands, and structural vulnerability in assessing seismic risk for industrial buildings like those studied here. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 00.5 11.5 22.5 3 Sa(g) Period DSHA izeh Aghaiari Behbahan Tashan 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 00.5 11.5 22.5 33.5 Sa DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 Sa(0.3)-APE0.004 Sa(0.3)-APE0.021 Sa(0.3)-APE0.1 J. Civil Eng. Mater.App. 2025 (September); 9(3): 145-153 ························································································· 149 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the seismic hazard and vulnerability assessments are presented in this section, followed by a detailed interpretation of their implications for the structural performance of the studied building. Using the probabilistic and deterministic analyses described earlier, the building’s expected response under various earthquake scenarios—including minor, design-level, severe, and deterministic events—was quantified through spectral acceleration demands, fragility-based damage probabilities, debris generation estimates, and casualty predictions. These results are discussed comparatively to highlight the influence of seismic intensity, structural configuration, and code-compliance limitations on the overall seismic risk of this old industrial reinforced concrete building. Table 1 shows Probability of exceeding various damage levels in deterministic, severe, design, and minor earthquakes for the building is . Table 1. Probability of exceeding various damage levels Damage level earthquake DS4 DS3 DS2 DS1 89 96 100 100 Deterministic 99 100 100 100 APE=0.0004 71 87 98 100 APE=0.0021 8 20 50 95 APE=0.1 Based on the information in Table 1, the building has a high probability of damage at all levels during the deterministic earthquake. The probability of slight damage (DS1) is 100%, which means damage to non-structural components, with the building’s function either preserved or immediately restorable with minor repairs [9-12]. The probability of moderate damage (DS2) is also 100%; this damage level indicates harm to structural components causing functional impairment and requiring repairs that may take several months. The probability of extensive damage (DS3) is near 100%; in this case, structural damage is significant enough to disrupt functionality and cannot be restored by routine repairs, although high casualties are not expected. The probability of complete damage (DS4) is about 90%, representing severe structural damage and total loss of function, which leads to debris spreading in the surrounding area [13]. Furthermore, the likelihood of high casualties exists in this scenario. Based on these results, it can be concluded that in the deterministic earthquake, all damage levels are probable in the building [14-17]. There is also a probability of slight damage in the building during a minor earthquake; in this case, the slight damage probability is high while other damage levels are low. The most critical earthquake to consider is the design-level event. At the design level, the probabilities of slight, moderate, extensive, and complete damage are 100%, 98%, 87%, and 71% respectively. Therefore, building performance under the design earthquake is weak and requires closer examination. Moreover, the probability of slight damage in refinery buildings during the severe earthquake is almost 100%, with a very high likelihood of moderate damage. According to these results, it can be said that in the severe earthquake, the probability of extensive and higher damage levels is very high [18-20]. Having these damage probabilities, the amount of debris and casualties can be estimated according to the Hazus methodology. For this purpose, the unit weight table of elements (Table 2) and debris generation tables (Tables 3 and 4) are required [2124]. J. Civil Eng. Mater.App. 2025 (September); 9(3): 145-153 ························································································· 150 Table 2. Unit weight (in tons per 93 square meters) of structural and non-structural elements based on the specific building type (Hazus). Brick, wood, etc. Reinforced concrete and steel Type Non structural structural Non structural structural 5.3 0.0 5.0 44.0 S1L 5.3 20.0 4.0 45.0 S5L 5.3 0.0 4.0 98.0 C1L 5.3 20.0 4.0 90.0 C3L 10.5 35.0 4.0 41.0 URML Table 3. Debris generated from damaged bricks, wood, and other structural and non-structural elements (as a percentage of weight) according to HAZUS Structural damage Non structural damage Type full extensive medium low full extensive medium low 100 0 0 0 100 35 7 1 S1L 100 60 25 5 100 35 7 1 S5L 100 0 0 0 100 35 7 1 C1L 100 60 25 5 100 35 7 1 C3L 100 55 25 5 100 45 12 2 URML Table 4. Debris generated from damaged reinforced concrete and steel structural and non-structural elements (as a percentage of weight) according to HAZUS Structural damage Non structural damage structure full extensive medium low full extensive medium low 100 33 5 0 100 28 8 0 C1L Based on this, the probability of debris can be calculated by multiplying the damage probability by the unit weight (Table 2) and the debris percentage (Table 3 or 4, as applicable). The results of these calculations for different cases are as follows: - In the deterministic earthquake, the total debris volume is approximately 109.62 tons. - In the minor earthquake, the debris volume is estimated at about 8.09 tons. - For the design-level earthquake, the debris is around 92.72 tons. - For the severe earthquake, the debris volume is estimated to be 118.55 tons. These debris estimates are instrumental for postearthquake recovery operations, emergency planning, and risk management, allowing for a realistic assessment of the cleanup and logistic requirements according to different seismic scenarios [26-30]. This method effectively translates seismic damage probabilities into tangible outcomes crucial for industrial infrastructure resilience planning. J. Civil Eng. Mater.App. 2025 (September); 9(3): 145-153 ························································································· 151 Figure 5. Effect of debris on pathways during a severe earthquake For most building types, default values assume that out of every 100 people present in the collapsed section of a building, 10 are killed immediately (intensity level 4), and 5 others become trapped and lose their lives without rapid rescue and immediate medical attention (intensity level 3). These values are based on typical building configurations and the assumption that even with collapse, most occupants at risk can escape the structure. However, for buildings expected to experience "pancake" collapse or where occupants are buried under heavy debris, this factor of 5 may be lower, as a much larger proportion of occupants may be trapped and killed, although many at-risk occupants may survive. In cases where pancaking collapse causes occupants to be buried or crushed under heavy debris such as concrete or masonry, casualty rates should be adjusted. Under these conditions, fatalities for intensities 3 and 4 should be increased by a factor ranging from 2 (for localized heavy debris falls) to 5 (for full pancake collapse of floors). Additionally, casualties at intensity 1 should be reduced accordingly so that the total sum of casualties and survival probability remains 1.0.Using this approach, the estimated fatalities are approximately 7.44 people for deterministic earthquakes, 0.2 for minor earthquakes, 1.2 for design-level earthquakes, and 8 for severe earthquakes. 4. CONCLUSION This study analyzed seismic risk for a reinforced concrete frame building with shear walls situated in an industrial facility, constructed in the 1970s without full compliance with modern seismic codes. The investigation aimed to assess the vulnerability of this older structure to earthquakes of various intensities in order to provide a comprehensive perspective on seismic hazards and potential consequences. The first step involved probabilistic seismic hazard analysis using uniform hazard spectra at the site, covering four earthquake levels: deterministic, minor, design, and severe, based on multiple attenuation relationships and OpenQuake software. Results showed spectral accelerations reaching approximately 1.8g for severe and 1.0g for design earthquakes, with lower values for minor earthquakes. Deterministic analysis of four nearby faults indicated a maximum spectral acceleration near 1.6g, lower than severe earthquake intensity but still presenting significant risk given the typical short fundamental periods (under 0.5 seconds) of refinery buildings.Next, fragility curves from literature were used to estimate probabilities of slight, moderate, extensive, and complete damage. The analyzed building has an extremely high probability of exceeding all damage levels at deterministic and severe earthquakes: slight, moderate, and extensive damage probabilities approach 100%, while complete damage probability ranges from 71% to 90%. Design-level earthquakes also showed high probabilities especially for moderate to complete J. Civil Eng. Mater.App. 2025 (September); 9(3): 145-153 ························································································· 152 damage, indicating weak building performance and the need for detailed evaluation. Further HAZUS-based calculations estimated debris volume and potential fatalities for different earthquake levels. Debris was estimated between 8 to 119 tons, which would not obstruct adjacent streets but requires careful post-earthquake crisis management planning. Human casualties ranged from less than one in minor earthquakes to about eight in severe events, highlighting significant risk in higher intensity earthquakes. Given the building's age and outdated seismic design basis, retrofitting or strengthening is clearly necessary to enhance safety. Assumptions about casualties also suggest that for buildings with potential pancake collapse or complete floor failure, fatality multipliers should be increased to more accurately model death and entrapment risks. This emphasizes the importance of considering specific failure modes in seismic risk assessments and highlights the need to tailor mitigation strategies accordingly. Additionally, the close proximity of active faults to the site underscores the potential for major earthquakes with significant impacts. The study also stresses the importance of updated and accurate seismic hazard data through probabilistic and deterministic modeling under realistic conditions for effective safety planning in industrial units. This allows decision-makers to adopt more informed risk management policies.Ultimately, despite substantial improvements in seismic regulations in recent years, older industrial buildings designed per earlier standards remain vulnerable to major earthquake damage. Comprehensive seismic risk assessment and performance evaluation of existing industrial structures are critical not only for life and asset protection but also for safe and sustainable operation of essential facilities.Thus, these findings serve as a valuable reference for seismic retrofit planning, emergency management, and risk reduction in similar industrial buildings, advancing earthquake preparedness and mitigation efforts. It is recommended that future studies incorporate more detailed structural properties, complex dynamic behaviors, and non-structural effects to refine risk models and develop targeted strengthening strategies. 5. REFERENCES [1] Sharifi P. Six Stages of Iran’s Industrialization in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Donya-e-Eqtesad Journal. 2012 Aug 6;(2780).]; [View at Publisher] [2] Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC). Official Website. [View at Publisher] [3] Ghasemi H, Zare M, Fukushima Y, Koketsu K. An empirical spectral ground-motion model for Iran. J Seismol. 2009;13(4):499-515. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [4] Chiou BJ, Youngs RR. An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra. 2008;24(1):173-215. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [5] Zhao JX, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, et al. Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 2006;96(3):898-913. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] AUTHORS CONTRIBUTION This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The author (s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this paper. FUNDING/SUPPORT Not mentioned by Authors. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The research team sincerely thanks Bid-Boland Gas Refinery Company for their generous support. We also extend our gratitude to the Center of Monitoring, Assessment, and Prediction of Natural Disasters (MAP) at Behbahan Khatam Alanbia University of Technology for their invaluable assistance throughout this study. Their collaboration and resources played an essential role in the successful completion of this research. J. Civil Eng. Mater.App. 2025 (September); 9(3): 145-153 ························································································· 153 [6] Akkar S, Çağnan Z. A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey and its comparison with other regional and global groundmotion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 2010;100(6):2978-2995. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [7] Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Bommer JJ. Empirical groundmotion models for pointand extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng. 2014;12(1):359-387. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [8] Karim Zadeh Z, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Kalantari A, Shokuhirad S. Development of analytical seismic fragility functions for the common buildings in Iran. Bull Earthq Eng. 2022:1-38. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [9] Applied Technology Council. ATC-13: Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California. 1985. [View at Publisher] [10] FEMA. Hazus Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology: Technical and User Manuals. Washington DC; 1999. [View at Publisher] [11] Villar-Vega M, Silva V, Crowley H, et al. Development of a fragility model for the residential building stock in South America. Earthq Spectra. 2017;33:581-604. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [12] Martins L, Silva V, Crowley H, Cavalieri F. Vulnerability modellers toolkit: an open-source platform for vulnerability analysis. Bull Earthq Eng. 2021;19:5691-5709. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [13] FEMA. Hazus® Earthquake Model Technical Manual: Hazus® 4.2 SP3. 2020. [View at Publisher] [14] Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC). Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Standard No. 2800. 4th Revision. Tehran; 2015. [View at Publisher] [15] Standard No. 2800. Iranian Seismic Code. [View at Publisher] [16] Motaghed S, Khazaee M, Eftekhari N, Mohammadi M. A nonextensive approach to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 2023;23(3):1117-1124. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [17] Yazdani A, Nicknam A, Khanzadi M, Motaghed S. An artificial statistical method to estimate seismicity parameters from incomplete earthquake catalogs: A case study in metropolitan Tehran. Res Note. 2015. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [18] Motaghed S, Khazaee M, Mohammadi M. The b-value estimation using the artificial statistical method for the Iran KopeDagh seismic province. Arab J Geosci. 2021;14(15):1461. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [19] Barzian V, Motaghed S, Mehrabi-Moghaddam A, AsghariPari SA, Emadali L. Effect of structural parameter uncertainty on incremental dynamic analysis of intermediate steel momentresisting frames. J Struct Constr Eng. 2022;9(10):175-195. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [20] Mehrabi-Moghadam A, Yazdani A, Motaghed S. Yielding displacement uncertainty in the reliability of mid-rise RC structures. J Rehabil Civ Eng. 2022;10(3):141-157. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [21] Motaghed S, Eftekhari N, Mohammadi M, Khazaee M. Logictree branch weights in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. J Seismol. 2023;27(6):1035-1046. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [22] Motaghed S, Fakhriyat AR. A reliable method for determining the tapered minimum magnitude in PSHA. Int J Reliability, Risk & Safety. 2022;5(2):89-95. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [23] Mehrabi-Moghaddam A, Motaghed S, Moayyeri N. Reliability of Iranian existing residential reinforced concrete structures in seismic events. 2024. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [24] Motaghed S, Yazdani A, Nicknam A, Khanzadi M. Sobol sensitivity generalization for engineering and science applications. J Modeling Eng. 2018;16(54):217-226. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [25] Nicknam A, Khanzadi M, Motaghed S, Yazdani A. Applying b-value variation to seismic hazard analysis using closed-form joint probability distribution. J Vibroeng. 2014;16(3):1376-1386. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [26] Khanzadi M, Nicknam A, Yazdani A, Motaghed S. A Bayesian approach for seismic recurrence parameter estimation. J Vibroeng. 2014;16(2):977-986. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [27] Motaghed S, Shahid-Zadeh MS, Khooshecharkh A, Askari M. Implementation of AI for predicting failures in reinforced concrete frames. Int J Reliability, Risk & Safety. 2022;5(2):1-7. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [28] Motaghed S, Eftekhari N, Mohammadi M, Khazaee M. Logictree branch weights in PSHA. J Seismol. 2023;27(6):1035-1046. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [29] Motaghed S, Moghaddam AM. Confidence level of Iranian existing RC moment-resisting structures based on DCFD design method. Int J Reliability, Risk & Safety. 2024;7(1):93-102. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher] [30] Motaghed S, Shamsizadeh M, Eftekhari N. Earthquake possibility space of Ahvaz city using intuitionistic fuzzy theory. J Eng Geol. 2024;18(2):321. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher]