Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 2465–2481 | Cite as

How could cumulative damage affect the macroseismic assessment?

  • Stefano GrimazEmail author
  • Petra Malisan
Original Research Paper

Abstract

When strong earthquakes occur, buildings are usually affected by multiple, consecutive seismic shakings causing a progression of the damage. This paper presents a comprehensive discussion on how the cumulative damage caused by multiple shocks could influence the assignment of macroseismic intensity. The potential consequences in case of single or multiple shocks are investigated through a large set of simulations, applying a simplified non-linear structural model on a stock of masonry buildings taken from real cases. The results allow an estimation of the changes in vulnerability, with reference to the European Macroseismic Scale classification, for the buildings that suffered a specific damage in a prior shock. Simulations reckon a significant difference in the macroseismic intensity assignments, especially when the same damage is associated to single or multiple seismic shocks. We highlight the potential bias due to the cumulative damage on the correlation between macroseismic intensity and ground motion parameters, and we formulate a proposal for testing on the field, in the case of future earthquakes, what has been here investigated through a simplified simulation.

Keywords

Cumulative damage Macroseismic intensity EMS98 Multiple seismic shocks Seismic ground motion 

Notes

Aknowledgments

This study has benefited from funding provided by the Italian Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri—Dipartimento della Protezione Civile (DPC), S2-2014 Project—“Constraining Observations into Seismic Hazard”. This paper does not necessarily represent DPC official opinion and policies. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which helped improving the quality of the manuscript. Many thanks also to F. Barazza and F. De Col, for the support given in the numerical simulations.

References

  1. Amadio C, Fragiacomo M, Rajgelj S (2003) The effects of repeated earthquake ground motions on the nonlinear response of SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(2):291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aschheim M, Black E (1999) Effects of prior earthquake damage on response of simple stiffness degrading structures. Earthq Spectra 15(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Di Cecca M, Grimaz S (2009) The new Friuli earthquake damage (Fr.E.D.) database. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica e Applicata 50:277–287Google Scholar
  4. Di Sarno L (2013) Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response. Eng Struct 56:673–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dizhur D, Ingham J, Moon L, Griffith M, Schultz A, Senaldi I, Magenes G, Dickie J, Lissel S, Centeno J, Ventura C, Leite J, Lourenco P (2011) Performance of masonry buildings and churches in the 22 February 2011 christchurch earthquake. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 44(4):279–296Google Scholar
  6. Dunand F, Ait Méziane Y, Guéguen P, Chatelain J-L, Guillier B, Ben Salem R, Hadid M, Hellel M, Kiboua A, Laouami N, Machane D, Mezouer N, Nour A, Oubaiche E, Remas A (2004) Utilisation du bruit de fond pour l’analyse des dommages des bâtiments de Boumerdes suite au séisme du 21 mai 2003. Mémoires du Service Géologique de l’Algérie 12:177–191Google Scholar
  7. D.M. 14/01/2008, (2008) Nuove Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, G.U. n. 29, 4 Febbraio 2008, S.O. n. 30. (in Italian only)Google Scholar
  8. Faccioli E, Cauzzi C (2006) Macroseismic intensities for seismic scenarios estimated from instrumentally based correlations. In: Proceedings, first european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology. Geneva, 3–8 Sept 2006, paper number: 569, p 10Google Scholar
  9. Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L (2004) Seismic response of steel frames under repeated earthquake ground motions. Eng Struct 26(13):2021–2035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gómez Capera AA, Albarello D, Gasperini P (2007) Aggiornamento relazioni fra l’intensità macrosismica e PGA, technical report, Project DPC-INGV S1, Deliverable D11. p 23. http://esse1.mi.ingv.it/d11.html. May 2016
  11. Goretti A, Di Pasquale G (2002) An overview of post earthquake damage assessment in Italy. In: EERI invitational workshop an action plan to develop earthquake damage and loss data protocols. Pasadena, 19–20 SeptGoogle Scholar
  12. Grimaz S, Malisan P (2014) Near field domain effects and their consideration in the international and Italian seismic codes. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 55(4):717–738Google Scholar
  13. Grimaz S, Barazza F, Del Pin E, Di Cecca M, Malisan P, Moretti A, Tosolini E (2015) D2.4 Set of observations of cumulative damage on Emilia buildings. DPC-INGV-S2 Project-427 2015, Deliverable 2.4. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B60wsWaPpDL4U3l1M05GRWN0SVU/. May 2016
  14. Grimaz S, Malisan P, Bolognese C, Ponticelli L, Cavriani M, Mannino E, Munaro L (2016a) Short term countermeasures system of the Italian national fire service for post-earthquake response. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 57, (in press)Google Scholar
  15. Grimaz S, Slejko D, Cucchi F, Barazza F, Biolchi S, Del Pin E, Franceschinis R, Garcia J, Gattesco N, Malisan P, Moretti A, Pipan M, Prizzon S, Rebez A, Santulin M, Zini L, Zorzini F (2016b) The ASSESS project: assessment for seismic risk reduction of school buildings in the Friuli Venezia Giulia region (NE Italy). Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 57, (in press)Google Scholar
  16. Grünthal G (ed) (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998. European Seismological Commission, Subcommission on Engineering Seismology, Working Group Macroseismic Scales, Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, 15, p 99. LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  17. Hatzigeorgiou B (2009) Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 31(11):2744–2755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ITACA Working Group (2016) Italian accelerometric archive, version 2.1 doi: 10.13127/ITACA/2.1 http://itaca.mi.ingv.it/Last visited: May 2016
  19. Katsanos EI, Sextos AG (2015) Inelastic spectra to predict period elongation of structures under earthquake loading. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(11):1765–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ryu H, Luco N. Uma SR, Liel, AB (2011) Developing fragilities for mainshock-damaged structures through incremental dynamic analysis. In: proceedings of the 9th Pacific conference on earthquake engineering. Auckland, Paper No. 225, p 8Google Scholar
  21. Locati M, Camassi R, Stucchi M (a cura di) (2011) DBMI11, la versione 2011 del Database Macrosismico Italiano. Milano, Bologna, doi:  10.6092/INGV.IT-DBMI11. http://emidius.mi.ingv.it/DBMI11 Last visited: May 2016
  22. Margottini C, Molin D, Serva L (1992) Intensity versus ground motion: a new approach using Italian data. Eng Geol 33(1):45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Medvedev S, Sponheuer W, Karník V (1964) Neue seismische Skala Intensity scale of earthquakes, 7. Tagung der Europäischen Seismologischen Kommission vom 24.9. bis 30.9.1962. In: Jena, Veröff. Institut für Bodendynamik und Erdbebenforschung in Jena, vol 77. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, pp 69–76Google Scholar
  24. Mouyiannou A, Penna A, Rota M, Grazziotti F, Magenes G (2014) Implications of cumulated seismic damage on the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry buildings. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 47(2):157–170Google Scholar
  25. Musson RMW, Grünthal G, Stucchi M (2009) The comparison of macroseismic intensity scales. J Seismolog 14(2):413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Penna A, Morandi P, Rota M, Manzini CF, da Porto F, Magenes G (2014) Performance of masonry buildings during the Emilia 2012 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):2255–2273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raghunandan, M., Liel, A.B., Luco, N., Ryu, H. and Uma, S.R. (2012) Aftershock Fragility Curves and Tagging Assessments for a Mainshock-Damaged Building. In: Proceedings 15th world conference on earthquake engineering. Lisboa, 24–28Google Scholar
  28. Régnier J, Michel C, Bertrand E, Guéguen P (2013) Contribution of ambient vibration recordings (free-field and buildings) for post-seismic analysis: the case of the Mw 7.3 Martinique (French Lesser Antilles) earthquake, November 29, 2007. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 50:162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rovida A, Camassi R, Gasperini P, Stucchi, M. (a cura di) (2011) CPTI11, la versione 2011 del Catalogo Parametrico dei Terremoti Italiani. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Milano, Bologna. doi: http://doi.org/10.6092/INGV.IT-CPTI11, site: http://emidius.mi.ingv.it/CPTI11/Last visited: May 2016
  30. Senaldi I, Magenes G, Ingham JM (2014) Damage assessment of unreinforced stone masonry buildings after the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Int J Arch Herit 9(5):605–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sieberg A (1930) Geologie der Erdbeben. Handbuch der Geophysik 2(4):552–555Google Scholar
  32. Spence R, D’Ayala D (1999) Damage assessment and analysis of the 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquakes. Struct Eng Int 9(3):229–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stucchi M, Meletti C, Montaldo V, Crowley H, Calvi GM, Boschi E (2011) Seismic hazard assessment (2003–2009) for the Italian building code. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(4):1885–1911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trevlopoulos K, Guéguen P (2016) Period elongation-based framework for operative assessment of the variation of seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete buildings during aftershock sequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 84:224–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turnsek V, Cacovic F (1971) Some experimental results on the strength of brick masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international brick masonry conference, stoke-on-trent, pp 149–156Google Scholar
  36. Vidal E, Navarro M, Aranda C, Enomoto T (2014) Changes in dynamic characteristics of Lorca RC buildings from pre- and post-earthquake ambient vibration data. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):2095–2110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wood HO, Neumann F (1931) Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931. Seismol Soc Am Bull 21(4):277–283Google Scholar
  38. Working Group MPS, (2004) Redazione della mappa di pericolosità sismica prevista dall’Ordinanza PCM del 20 marzo 2003 n.3274 All. 1. Rapporto conclusivo per il Dipartamento della Protezione Civile, INGV, Milano-Roma, aprile 2004, p 65. http://zonesismiche.mi.ingv.it/. May 2016. (in Italian only)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Safety and Protection Intersectoral Laboratory - SPRINT-LabUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations