Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-low seismic hazard regions: application to Grenoble (France)

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to the moderate seismic risks in France, the building vulnerability assessment methods developed for high seismic risk countries could not easily be used here because of their cost and the low-risk perception among the public and officials. A light vulnerability assessment method is proposed and tested in Grenoble (France), based on classes and scores provided in the GNDT method but simplified in terms of visual screening and number of structural parameters used. Compared to the RiskUE method, the damage obtained by our approach shows that 90% of buildings have residuals smaller than 0.2, i.e. one grade of the EMS98 damage scale. A large scale survey is devised and conducted among the inhabitants of Grenoble in order to collect the main structural parameters. By comparing the results from the survey to the historical urbanization of Grenoble and to expert surveys performed in two urban districts, the information useful for the light method of vulnerability assessment can be rapidly collected by non-experts reducing substantially the estimate cost. The average damage is then computed using the GNDT formula considering the probable intensities which could be observed in Grenoble (VII and VIII). The average damage reaches 0.4 in the oldest part of Grenoble mainly made of masonry buildings and 0.2 in reinforced concrete suburbs where reinforced concrete predominates. The results are a relative vulnerability assessment that provides useful initial information for the urban zones of Grenoble where the vulnerability is higher. This method can be used to classify the seismic vulnerability in wide seismic-prone regions to a fair degree of accuracy and at low cost.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AFPS. (1996) Le séisme d’Epagny (Haute-Savoie) du 15 juillet 1996. Rapport de mission. AFPS (Ed.), Paris, 128

  • ATC 21 (1988) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California

  • Benedetti D and Petrini V (1984). On seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings: proposal of an evaluation procedure. L’Industria delle Costruzioni 18: 66–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvi GM, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Pinho R, Crowley H and Restrepo-Vélez LF (2006). Displacement-based methods for seismic vulnerability assessment at variable geographical scale. ISET J Earthquake Technol 43(3): 75–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Combescure D, Guéguen P and Lebrun B (2005). Vulnérabilité sismique du bâti existant: approche d’ensemble. Cahier technique, AFPS (Ed) 25: 121

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornou C, Bard P.-Y and Dietrich M (2003). Contribution of dense array analysis to the identification and quantification of basin-edge induced waves. Part II: application to Grenoble basin (French Alps). Bull Seism Soc Am 93(6): 2624–2648

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Ayala D, Spence R, Oliveira C and Pomonis A (1997). Earthquake loss estimation for Europe’s historic town centres. Earthquake Spectra 13(4): 773–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolce M, Masi A, Marino M and Vona M (2003). Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) including site effects. Bull Earthquake Eng 1: 115–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EMS98 (2001) L’Echelle Macrosismique Européenne 1998. Conseil de l’Europe, Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, volume 19

  • Ergunay O, Gulkan P (1991) Seismic risk reduction and disaster management: national report of Turkey. In: Proceedings of workshop on seismic risk reduction and disaster management, Roma, Italy, November, 1991

  • Faccioli E, Pessina V, Calvi GM and Borzi B (1999). A study on damage scenarios for residential buildings in Catania City. J Seismol 3(3): 327–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farsi, M. (1996) Identification des structures de génie civil à partir de leurs réponses vibratoires. Vulnérabilité du bâti existant. PhD thesis, University Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, 194 pp

  • FEMA 178 (1997) NEHRP handbook for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency

  • GEMGEP (2005) Le risque sismique à Nice, apport méthodologique, résultats et perspectives opérationnelles. Final report project GEMGEP, 7 April 2005, 52 pp

  • GEMITIS (1999) Evaluation des dommages directs d’un séisme sur la ville de Nice: scénarios de risque. Report BRGM R40612, 171 pp

  • Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S (2003) Seismic risk analysis: a method for the vulnerability analysis of built-up areas. In: Proceedings of European safety and reliability conference, ESREL, Maastricht, The Netherlands, June 2003

  • GNDT (1993) Rischio sismico di edifici pubblici—Parte I: aspetti metodologici. Centro Servizi Quasco, Bologna

  • Guéguen P, Cornou C, Garambois S and Banton J (2007). On the limitation of the H/V spectral ratio using seismic noise as an exploration tool: application to the Grenoble valley (France), a small apex ratio basin. Pure Appl Geophys 164(1): 115–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guéguen P, Vassail T (2003) Typologie de l’agglomération grenobloise. Report VULNERALP, 38 pp

  • HAZUS (1997) Earthquake loss estimation methodology. Hazus technical manuals. National Institute of Building Science, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington

  • Jongmans D, Plumier A (2000) Etude Pilote du risque sismique sur une partie de la ville de Liège, rapport interne, Université de Liège, Faculté des sciences appliquées (in French)

  • Lebrun B, Hatzfeld D and Bard P-Y (2001). A site effect study in urban area: experimental results in Grenoble (France). PAGEOPH 158: 2543–2557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin C (1999) Méthodologie d’évaluation du risque sismique aux échelles locale et régionale applicable aux maisons individuelles. Programmes GEMITIS Pointe-à-Pitre et Fort-de-France, contrats de plans Etat-Régions Martinique et Guadeloupe. Report. GTR/BRGM/0188–98

  • MEDD (1982) Le risque sismique. Délégation aux risques majeurs, 1982

  • Milutinovic ZV, Trendafiloski GS (2003) WP4-Vulnerability of current buildings, RISK-UE project, 110 pp

  • Oliveira CS (2003). Seismic vulnerability of historical constructions: a contribution. Bull Earthquake Eng 1(1): 37–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onur T, Ventura CE and Liam Finn WD (2005). Regional seismic risk in British Columbia – damage and loss distribution in Victoria and Vancouver. Can J Civ Eng 32: 361–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otani S (2000). Seismic vulnerability assessment methods for buildings in Japan. Earthquake Eng & Eng Seismol 2(2): 47–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Parent J-F (1982) Grenoble, deux siècles d’urbanisme. Presse Universitaire de Grenoble, 187 pp

  • Pierre J-P and Montagne M (2004). The 20 April 2002, Mw 5.0 Au Sable Forks, New York, earthquake~: a supplementary source of knowledge on earthquake damage to lifelines and buildings in Eastern North America. Seismol Res Lett 75(5): 626–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RiskUE (2003) An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different european towns, Projet Européen, EVK4-CT-2000–00014

  • Roca A, Goula X, Susagna T, Chávez J, González M and Reinoso E (2006). A simplified method for vulerability assessment of dwelling buildings and estimation of the damage scenarios in Catalonia (Spain). Bull Earthquake Eng 4(2): 141–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saito K, Spence R, Going C and Markus M (2004). Using high-resolution satellite images for post-earthquakes building damage assessment: a study following the 26 January 2001 Gujarat earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 20(1): 145–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweier C, Markus A and Steinle E (2004). Simulation of earthquake caused building damages for the development of fast reconnaissance techniques. Nat. Hazard Earth Syst. Sci. 4: 285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seismocare (1998) Seismocare Computed Aided Reduction of Seismic Risk with application to existing cities, town planning and construction - Directions to fill in the vulnerability form GNDT levels 1 and 2. European project Environment and Climate, 1994–1998, ENV4-CT97–0588

  • Spence R, Bommer J, Del Re D, Bird J, Aydinoglu N and Tabuchi S (2003). Comparing loss estimation with observed damage: a study of the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turquey. Bull Earthquake Eng 1(1): 83–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence R, Lebrun B (ed) (2006) Earthquake scenarios for European cities – the risk-UE project. Bull Earthquake Eng 4(4): special issue.

  • Steimen S, Faeh D, Giardini D, Bertogg M and Tschudi S (2004). Reliability of building inventories in seismic prone regions. Bull. of Earthquake Engi. 2(3): 361–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thouvenot F, Fréchet J, Jenatton J and Gamond JF (2003). The Belledonne border fault: indetification of an active seimic strike-slip fault in the western Alps. Geophys J Int 155: 174–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ventura CE, Liam Finn WD, Onur T, Blanquera A and Rezai M (2005). Regional seismic risk in British Columbia – classification of buildings and development of damage probability functions. Can J Civ Eng 32: 372–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VULNERALP (2004) Projet d’évaluation de la vulnérabilité sismique à Grenoble. http://www-lgit.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/~pgueg/VULNERALP)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maison des Geoscience, LGIT, university of Grenoble, CNRS, BP 53, 38041, Grenoble cedex 9, France

    Philippe Guéguen, Clotaire Michel & Laele LeCorre

  2. LCPC, Paris, France

    Philippe Guéguen

Authors
  1. Philippe Guéguen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clotaire Michel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laele LeCorre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Guéguen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guéguen, P., Michel, C. & LeCorre, L. A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-low seismic hazard regions: application to Grenoble (France). Bull Earthquake Eng 5, 467–490 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9036-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9036-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation