Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 767–795 | Cite as

Validation and extension of a statistical usability model for unreinforced masonry buildings with different ground motion intensity measures

  • Maria ZucconiEmail author
  • Rachele Ferlito
  • Luigi Sorrentino
S.I. : 10th IMC conference

Abstract

Predicting the usability of a building, i.e. its condition of being occupiable after a seismic event, is relevant both in a post-emergency situation and within a risk-reduction policy. In the past an empirical model was proposed, involving the computation of a usability index based on macroseismic intensity and on seven building parameters, combined by means of regression coefficients and weights. The statistical model was calibrated on data of about 60,000 buildings affected by the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake in Italy. Therefore, it is useful to validate the model against data from the 2002 Molise earthquake in Italy. Good agreement between predicted and observed usability is shown, despite the fact that in 2002, macroseismic intensity was attributed to an entire municipality instead of a more limited area. Moreover, given the current availability of the shakemaps for the 2009 event, a novel model replacing conventional macroseismic intensity by an instrumental intensity measure is proposed. Three ground motion parameters are considered here: peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and spectral pseudoacceleration at a period of vibration of 0.3 s. The model has been streamlined by reducing the building parameters from seven to five: building position within the structural aggregate, roof type, construction timespan, structural class, and pre-existing damage to structural elements. Peak ground acceleration and spectral pseudoacceleration are shown to be less effective than peak ground velocity in predicting observed usability. Therefore, usability probability matrices are computed in terms of peak ground velocity; the model is presented with all necessary coefficients and weights, and a worked-out example shows how to apply the procedure.

Keywords

Seismic vulnerability Building parameters Usability probability matrices PGA PGV Spectral pseudoacceleration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Dipartimento di Protezione Civile for granting access to the damage and usability database of the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. This work was partially carried out under the programs “Dipartimento della Protezione Civile – Consorzio RELUIS”. The opinions expressed in this publication are solely those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Dipartimento di Protezione Civile.

References

  1. Abrams DP, AlShawa O, Lourenço PB, Sorrentino L (2017) Out-of-plane seismic response of unreinforced masonry walls: conceptual discussion, research needs, and modeling issues. Int J Archit Herit 11:22–30.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2016.1238977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AlShawa O, Liberatore D, Sorrentino L (2019) Dynamic one-sided out-of-plane behavior of unreinforced-masonry wall restrained by elasto-plastic tie-rods. Int J Archit Herit 13:340–357.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1563226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aschheim MA, Black EF, Cuesta I (2002) Theory of principal components analysis and applications to multistory frame buildings responding to seismic excitation. Eng Struct 24:1091–1103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00036-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ATC-13 (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  5. Augenti N, Parisi F (2010) Learning from construction failures due to the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake. J Perform Constr Facil 24:536–555.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baggio C, Bernardini A, Colozza R et al (2007) Field manual for post-earthquake damage and safety assessment and short term countermeasures (AeDES). European Communities, 2007 reproductionGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbat AH, Yépez Moya F, Canas JA (1996) Damage scenarios simulation for seismic risk assessment in urban zones. Earthq Spectra 12:371–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benedetti D, Petrini V (1984) Sulla vulnerabilita sismica di edifici in muratura: un metodo di valutazione. A method for evaluating the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings. L’industria delle Costr 19:66–74Google Scholar
  9. Bertelli S, Rossetto T, Ioannou I (2018) Derivation of empirical fragility functions from the 2009 Aquila earthquake. In: 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, Thessaloniki, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  10. Booth E (2007) The estimation of peak ground-motion parameters from spectral ordinates. J Earthq Eng 11:13–32.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460601123156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borzi B, Pinho R, Crowley H (2008) Simplified pushover-based vulnerability analysis for large-scale assessment of RC buildings. Eng Struct 30:804–820.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.05.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D (1982) A statistical study on damaged buildings and an ensuing review of the MSK-76 scale. In: 7th European conference on earthquake engineering, pp 431–450Google Scholar
  13. Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G et al (2006) Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET J Earthq Technol 43:75–104Google Scholar
  14. Colonna S, Imperatore S, Zucconi M, Ferracuti B (2017) Post-seismic damage assessment of a historical masonry building: the case study of a school in Teramo. In: International conference on mechanics of masonry structures strengthened with composites materials, MuRiCo5, Bologna, Italy, 28–30 June. Key Engineering Materials, Bologna, pp 620–627.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.747.620 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D’Ayala D (2013) Assessing the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings. In: Handbook of seismic risk analysis and management of civil infrastructure systems, pp 334–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Leeuw ED, Hox JJ, Dillam DA (2012) International handbook of survey methodology. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Del Gaudio C, De Martino G, Di Ludovico M et al (2017) Empirical fragility curves from damage data on RC buildings after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 15:1425–1450.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0026-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Moroni C et al (2017a) Reconstruction process of damaged residential buildings outside historical centres after the L’Aquila earthquake: part I—“light damage” reconstruction. Bull Earthq Eng 15:667–692.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9877-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Moroni C et al (2017b) Reconstruction process of damaged residential buildings outside historical centres after the L’Aquila earthquake: part II—“heavy damage” reconstruction. Bull Earthq Eng 15:693–729.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9979-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DMIT (2018) Decreto del Ministro delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti 17 gennaio 2018. Aggiornamento delle “Norme tecniche per le costruzioni”Google Scholar
  21. Dolce M, Di Bucci D (2014) National civil protection organization and technical activities in the 2012 Emilia earthquakes (Italy). Bull Earthq Eng 12:2231–2253.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9597-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dolce M, Goretti A (2015) Building damage assessment after the 2009 Abruzzi earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 13:2241–2264.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9723-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dolce M, Manfredi G (2015) Libro Bianco Sulla Ricostruzione Privata Fuori Dai Centri Storici Nei Comuni Colpiti Dal Sisma Dell’Abruzzo Del 6 Aprile 2009. Doppiavoce, NapoliGoogle Scholar
  24. Dolce M, Speranza E, Giordano F et al (2017) Da. D. O—Uno strumento per la consultazione e la comparazione del danno osservato relativo ai più significativi eventi sismici in Italia dal 1976. In: XXVII Convegno ANIDIS-L’Ingegneria Sismica in Italia. Pistoia, pp 348–357Google Scholar
  25. EC8-1 (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  26. Erberik MA (2008) Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in-plane failure modes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn Eng 37:387–405.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Faenza L, Lauciani V, Michelini A (2011) Rapid determination of the shakemaps for the L’Aquila main shock: a critical analysis. Boll di Geofis Teor ed Appl 52:407–425.  https://doi.org/10.4430/bgta0020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16:573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ferlito R, Guarascio M, Zucconi M (2013) Assessment of a vulnerability model against post-earthquake damage data: the case study of the historic city centre of L’Aquila in Italy. In: 9th World conference on earthquake resistant engineering structures, A Coruna, Spain, 8–10 July. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, pp 393–404.  https://doi.org/10.2495/ERES130321
  30. Formisano A, Florio G, Landolfo R, Mazzolani FM (2011) Numerical calibration of a simplified procedure for the seismic behaviour assessment of masonry building aggregates. In: 13th International conference on civil, structural and environmental engineering computing, Stirling, Scotland, pp 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2014.09.013
  31. Galli P, Camassi R, Azzaro R et al (2009) Il Terremoto Aquilano del 6 Aprile 2009: Rilievo Macrosismico, Effetti di Superficie ed Implicazioni Sismotettoniche. Quat Ital J Quat Sci 22:235–246Google Scholar
  32. Gebelein J, Barnard M, Burton H et al (2017) Considerations for a framework of resilient structural design for earthquakes. In: 2017 Seaoc convention proceedings, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  33. Giuffrè A (1996) A mechanical model for statics and dynamics of historical masonry buildings. In: Petrini V, Save M (eds) Protection of the architectural heritage against earthquakes. Springer, Wien, pp 71–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goretti A, Di Pasquale G (2004) Building inspection and damage data for the 2002 Molise, Italy, earthquake. Earthq Spectra 20:S167–S190.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1769373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grünthal G (1998) Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie: Volume 15—European Macroseismic Scale 1998. European Center for Geodynamics and Seismology, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  36. Gutiérrez E, Zaldivar JM (2000) The application of Karhunen–Loeve, or principal component analysis method, to study the non-linear seismic response of structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29:1261–1286.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9845(200009)29:9%3c1261:AID-EQE964%3e3.0.CO;2-N CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jolliffe IT (2002) Principal component analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:391–413.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9023-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. L (1962) Legge 1684. Provvedimenti per l’edilizia con particolari prescrizioni per le zone sismiche. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 22 dicembre 1962, n. 326Google Scholar
  40. Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:415–443.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Locati M, Camassi R, Rovida A et al (2016) DBMI15, the 2015 version of the Italian macroseismic databaseGoogle Scholar
  42. Loh CH, Chan CK, Chen SF, Huang SK (2016) Vibration-based damage assessment of steel structure using global and local response measurements. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45:699–718.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2680 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Magenes G, Penna A, Senaldi IE et al (2014) Shaking table test of a strengthened full-scale stone masonry building with flexible diaphragms. Int J Archit Herit 8:349–375.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2013.826299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Massumi A, Gholami F (2016) The influence of seismic intensity parameters on structural damage of RC buildings using principal components analysis. Appl Math Modell 40:2161–2176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.09.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MathWorks (2016) MatlabGoogle Scholar
  46. Mouyiannou A, Penna A, Rota M et al (2014) Implications of cumulated seismic damage on the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry buildings. Bull New Zeal Soc Earthq Eng 47:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Musson RMW, Grünthal G, Stucchi M (2010) The comparison of macroseismic intensity scales. J Seismol 14:413–428.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-009-9172-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ni YQ, Zhou XT, Ko JM (2006) Experimental investigation of seismic damage identification using PCA-compressed frequency response functions and neural networks. J Sound Vib 290:242–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2005.03.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pinto A, Taucer F (2007) Field manual for post-earthquake damage and safety assessment and short term countermeasures (AeDES). European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, IspraGoogle Scholar
  50. Ramos LF, Lourenço PB (2004) Modeling and vulnerability of historical city centers in seismic areas: a case study in Lisbon. Eng Struct 26:1295–1310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rossetto T, D’Ayala D, Gori F et al (2014) The value of multiple earthquake missions: the EEFIT L’Aquila earthquake experience. Bull Earthq Eng 12:277–305.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9588-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosti A, Rota M, Penna A (2018) Damage classification and derivation of damage probability matrices from L’Aquila (2009) post-earthquake survey data. Bull Earthq Eng 16:3687–3720.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0352-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia CL (2008) Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:933–947.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia C, Magenes G (2011) Typological seismic risk maps for Italy. Earthq Spectra 27:907–926.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3609850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sisti R, Di Ludovico M, Borri A, Prota A (2018) Damage assessment and the effectiveness of prevention: the response of ordinary unreinforced masonry buildings in Norcia during the Central Italy 2016–2017 seismic sequence. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0448-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sorrentino L (2007) The early entrance of dynamics in earthquake engineering: arturo Danusso’s contribution. ISET J Earthq Technol 44:1–24Google Scholar
  57. Sorrentino L, Tocci C (2008) The structural strengthening of early and mid 20th century reinforced concrete diaphragms. In: 6th International conference on structural analysis of historic construction, 2–4 July, Bath, pp 1431–1439Google Scholar
  58. Sorrentino L, Bruccoleri D, Antonini M (2008) Structural interpretation of post-earthquake (19th century) retrofitting on the Santa Maria degli Angeli Basilica, Assisi, Italy. In: 6th International conference on structural analysis of historic construction, 2–4 July, Bath, pp 217–225Google Scholar
  59. Sorrentino L, Cattari S, Da Porto F et al (2018) Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016 Central Italy earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0370-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spence R, Coburn AW, Pomonis A (1992) Correlation of ground motion with building damage: the definition of a new damage-based Seismic Intensity Scale. In: 10th World conference on earthquake engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp 551–556Google Scholar
  61. Stannard M, Galloway B, Brunsdon D et al (2014) Field guide: rapid post disaster building usability assessment—earthquakes. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  62. Vicente R, Parodi S, Lagomarsino S et al (2011) Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment: case study of the historic city centre of Coimbra, Portugal. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1067–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9233-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walsh KQ, Cummuskey PA, Jafarzadeh R, Ingham JM (2017) Rapid identification and taxonomical classification of structural seismic attributes in a regionwide commercial building stock. J Perform Constr Facil 31:04016067.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000927 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Whitman RV, Reed JW, Hong ST (1973) Earthquake damage probability matrices. In: 5th World conference on earthquake engineering, Rome, pp 2531–2540Google Scholar
  65. Zuccaro G, Cacace F (2015) Seismic vulnerability assessment based on typological characteristics. The first level procedure “SAVE”. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:262–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zucconi M, Sorrentino L, Ferlito R (2017) Principal component analysis for a seismic usability model of unreinforced masonry buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 96:64–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zucconi M, Ferlito R, Sorrentino L (2018a) Simplified survey form of unreinforced masonry buildings calibrated on data from the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 16:2877–2911.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0283-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zucconi M, Ferlito R, Sorrentino L (2018b) Verification of a usability model for unreinforced masonry buildings with data from the 2002 Molise, Earthquake. In: Proceedings of the international masonry society conferences (ed) 10th international masonry conference, IMC, Milan, Italy, 9–11 July. Milano, pp 680–688Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EngineeringUniversity Niccolò CusanoRomeItaly
  2. 2.Civil Protection DepartmentSeismic Risk OfficeRomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of Structural and Geotechnical EngineeringSapienza – University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations