Rapid screening method for the determination of seismic vulnerability assessment of RC building stocks

  • Onur Coskun
  • Alper AldemirEmail author
  • Mustafa Sahmaran
Original Research


Until recently, seismic vulnerability assessment of large building inventories could only be done using rapid seismic assessment techniques. These techniques generally use some estimation variables whose status can be determined by visual inspection, and should therefore be well-trained to ensure sufficient accuracy. This study proposes a new rapid assessment method for reinforced concrete (RC) structures, developed based on the detailed assessment results of 545 RC structures. 400 of the available detailed assessment results were used to train the proposed rapid seismic assessment method. First, the estimation variables of the proposed method (i.e. number of stories, seismic zone, soil condition, building age, type of structural system, etc.) were selected. The penalty scores for these estimation variables were then determined using ordinary least square regression analysis and multi-variate linear regression analysis, successively. Finally, the remaining 145 RC buildings were used to test the performance of the proposed technique. The test showed that the overall correct estimation rate of the proposed method was as large as 83% for both databases.


Rapid assessment RC structures Penalty scores Multivariate regression Seismic vulnerability 



  1. Al-Nimry H, Resheidat M, Qeran S (2015) Rapid assessment for seismic vulnerability of low and medium rise infilled RC frame buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 14:275–293. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Askan A, Yucemen MS (2010) Probabilistic methods for the estimation of potential seismic damage: application to reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. Struct Saf 32:262–271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chopra AK (2012) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  4. Eurocode 6 (CEN 2003) Eurocode 6: design of masonry structures. prEN 1996-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  5. FEMA356 (FEMA 2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. FEMA P154 (FEMA 2015) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. GABHR (2013) Guidelines for the assessment of buildings under high risk. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  8. GABHR (2019) Guidelines for the assessment of buildings under high risk. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  9. Gulkan P, Yakut A (1994) An expert system for reinforced concrete structural damage quantification. In: Wight JK, Kreger ME (eds) ACI SP-162, Mete A. Sozen symposium, pp 53–71Google Scholar
  10. Jain SK, Mitra K, Kumar M, Shah M (2010) A proposed rapid visual screening procedure for seismic evaluation of RC-frame buildings in India. Earthq Spectra 26(3):709–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jerez S, Mebarki A (2011) Seismic assessment of framed buildings: a pseudo-adaptive uncoupled modal response analysis. J Earthq Eng 15(7):1015–1035. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaplan O, Guney Y, Topcu A, Ozcelikors Y (2018) A rapid seismic safety assessment method for mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 16(2):889–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kumar SA, Rajaram C, Mishra S, Kumar RP, Karnath A (2017) Rapid visual screening of different housing typologies in Himachal Pradesh, India. Nat Hazards 85:1851–1875. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Perrone D, Aiello MA, Pecce M, Rossi F (2015) Rapid visual screening for seismic evaluation of RC hospital buildings. Structures 3:57–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Priestley MJN (1997) Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthq Eng 1(1):157–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sozen MA (2014) Surrealism in facing the earthquake risk. Seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of structures. Springer, Berlin. ISBN 978-3-319-00458-7Google Scholar
  17. SPSS v15.0 (2006) Statistical package for the social sciences. SPSS Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. STATA (2015) Stata statistical software: release 14. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
  19. Sucuoglu H, Yazgan U (2003) Simple survey procedures for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks. In: Wasti ST, Ozcebe G (eds) Seismic assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings, earth and environmental sciences, vol 29. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, pp 97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC 2007) (2007) Specification for structures to be built in disaster areas. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  21. Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC 2018) (2018) Specification for structures to be built in disaster areas. Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  22. Yakut A (2004) Preliminary seismic performance assessment procedure for existing RC buildings. Eng Struct 26:1447–1461. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yavuz S, Deveci M (2013) Istatiksel Normalizasyon Tekniklerinin Yapay Sinir Agin Performansına Etkisi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi 40:167–187 (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  24. Yucemen MS, Ozcebe G, Pay AC (2004) Prediction of potential damage due to severe earthquakes. Struct Saf 26(2004):349–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations