Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 391–413 | Cite as

A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings

  • Andreas J. Kappos
  • Georgios Panagopoulos
  • Christos Panagiotopoulos
  • Gregorios Penelis
Original Research Paper

Abstract

The methodology followed by the Aristotle University (AUTh) team for the vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete (R/C) and unreinforced masonry (URM) structures is presented. The paper focuses on the derivation of vulnerability (fragility) curves in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA), as well as spectral displacement (s d), and also includes the estimation of capacity curves, for several R/C and URM building types. The vulnerability assessment methodology is based on the hybrid approach developed at AUTh, which combines statistical data with appropriately processed (utilising repair cost models) results from nonlinear dynamic or static analyses, that permit extrapolation of statistical data to PGA’s and/or spectral displacements for which no data are available. The statistical data used herein are from earthquake-damaged greek buildings. An extensive numerical study is carried out, wherein a large number of building types (representing most of the common typologies in S. Europe) are modelled and analysed. Vulnerability curves for several damage states are then derived using the aforementioned hybrid approach. These curves are subsequently used in combination with the mean spectrum of the Microzonation study of Thessaloniki as the basis for the derivation of new vulnerability curves involving spectral quantities. Pushover curves are derived for all building types, then reduced to standard capacity curves, and can easily be used together with the S d fragility curves as an alternative for developing seismic risk scenarios.

Keywords

Capacity curves Fragility curves Hybrid methodology Loss assessment R/C buildings URM buildings Vulnerability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anagnos T, Rojahn C, Kiremidjian AS (1995) NCEER-ATC joint study on fragility of buildings. Techn. Rep. NCEER 95-0003, State Univ. of NY at BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastasiadis A, Raptakis D, Pitilakis K (2001) Thessaloniki’s detailed microzoning: subsurface structure as basis for site response analysis. Pure Appl Geophys – PAGEOPH 158(12):2597–2633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ATC (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California (ATC-13) Appl. Technology Council, Redwood City CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Braga F et al. (1986) Evaluation of a conventionally defined vulnerability of buildings based on surveyed damage data. Proceeding 9th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, LNEC, vol 1, 2.3/33–40Google Scholar
  5. Computers and Structures Inc (2002) SAP2000 – version 8: integrated software for structural analysis and design. Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  6. Dymiotis C, Kappos AJ, Chryssanthopoulos MC (1999) Seismic reliability of R/C frames with uncertain drift and member capacity. J Str Engng ASCE 125(9):1038–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fardis MN, Karantoni FV, Kosmopoulos A (1999) Statistical evaluation of damage during the 15-6-95 Aegio Earthquake. Final Report to the Sponsor (EPPO), Patras (in Greek)Google Scholar
  8. FEMA-NIBS (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology – earthquake model: HAZUS®MH. Advanced engineering building module – Technical and user’s manual, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Kappos AJ (2001) Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings in Southern Europe, Keynote lecture, Convegno Nazionale ‘L’Ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Potenza/Matera, Italy, Sep. 2001, CD ROM ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  10. Kappos A, Pitilakis K, Morfidis K, Hatzinikolaou N (2002) Vulnerability and risk study of Volos (Greece) metropolitan area. CD ROM Proceedings 12th ECEE, London, UK, Sep. 2002, Paper 074Google Scholar
  11. Kappos AJ, Dymiotis C (2000) DRAIN-2000: a program for the inelastic time-history and seismic reliability analysis of 2-D structures. Report No. STR/00/CD/01, Department of Civil and Offshore Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Michailidis CN (1998a) Analytical models for brick masonry infilled R/C frames under lateral loading. J Earthquake Eng 2(1):59–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Pitilakis K (1998b) Development of seismic risk scenarios based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment. Nat Hazards 17(2):177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karantoni FV, Bouckovalas G (1997) Description and analysis of building damage due to Pyrgos, Greece earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 16(2):141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koliopoulos PK, Margaris BN, Klimis NS (1998) Duration and energy characteristics of Greek strong motion records. J Earthquake Eng 2(3):391–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Penelis GrG (2000) A new approach for the pushover analysis of URM structures. Proceedings 5th International Congress on Restoration of Architectural Heritage, Florence, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  17. Penelis GG et al (1989) A statistical evaluation of damage to buildings in the Thessaloniki, Greece, earthquake of June, 20, 1978. Proceedings of 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Aug. 1988), Tokyo:Maruzen, VII, pp187–192Google Scholar
  18. Penelis GrG, Kappos AJ, Stylianidis, KC (2003) Assessment of the seismic vulnerability of unreinforced masonry buildings. STREMAH 2003, 8th International Conference on Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage Architecture, Chalkidiki, Greece 2003. WIT Press, pp575–584Google Scholar
  19. Penelis GrG, Kappos AJ, Stylianidis, KC, Lagomarsino S (2002) Statistical assessment of the vulnerability of unreinforced masonry buildings. International Conference Earthquake Loss Estimation and Risk Reduction, Bucharest, RomaniaGoogle Scholar
  20. Singhal A, Kiremidjian AS (1996) A method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage. J Struct Eng ASCE 122(12):1459–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spence RJS et al (1992) Correlation of ground motion with building damage: the definition of a new damage-based seismic intensity scale. Proceedings 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Madrid, Spain) Balkema, Rotterdam, vol 1, pp551–556Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas J. Kappos
    • 1
  • Georgios Panagopoulos
    • 1
  • Christos Panagiotopoulos
    • 1
  • Gregorios Penelis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations