Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 49–65 | Cite as

Evaluation of seismic hazard for the assessment of historical elements at risk: description of input and selection of intensity measures

  • John Douglas
  • Darius M. Seyedi
  • Thomas Ulrich
  • Hormoz Modaressi
  • Evelyne Foerster
  • Kyriazis Pitilakis
  • Dimitris Pitilakis
  • Anna Karatzetzou
  • George Gazetas
  • Evangelia Garini
  • Marianna Loli
Original Research Paper

Abstract

The assessment of historical elements at risk from earthquake loading presents a number of differences from the seismic evaluation of modern structures, for design or retrofitting purposes, which is covered by existing building codes, and for the development of fragility curves, procedures for which have been extensively developed in the past decade. This article briefly discusses: the hazard framework for historical assets, including a consideration of the appropriate return period to be used for such elements at risk; the intensity measures that could be used to describe earthquake shaking for the analysis of historical assets; and available approaches for their assessment. We then discuss various unique aspects of historical assets that mean the characterisation of earthquake loading must be different from that for modern structures. For example, historical buildings are often composed of heterogeneous materials (e.g., old masonry) and they are sometimes located where strong local site effects occur due to: steep topography (e.g., hilltops), basin effects or foundations built on the remains of previous structures. Standard seismic hazard assessment undertaken for modern structures and the majority of sites is generally not appropriate. Within the PERPETUATE project performance-based assessments, using nonlinear static and dynamic analyses for the evaluation of structural response of historical assets, were undertaken. The steps outlined in this article are important for input to these assessments.

Keywords

Seismic hazard assessment Site effects Intensity measures Fragility curves Historical buildings Cultural heritage assets Monuments 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work presented in this article has been funded by the PERPETUATE (Performance-based approach to earthquake protection of cultural heritage in European and Mediterranean countries) project of the EC-Research Framework Programme FP7. We thank two anonymous reviewers and the guest editors Sergio Lagomarsino and Dina D’Ayala for their comments on a previous version of this article.

References

  1. Abrahamson N, Atkinson G, Boore D, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell K, Chiou B, Idriss IM, Silva W, Youngs R (2008) Comparisons of the NGA ground-motion relations. Earthq Spectra 24(1):45–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2007) Foundation-structure systems over a rupturing normal fault: part I. Observations after the Kocaeli 1999 earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 5(3):253–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G, Bransby MF, Davies MCR, El Nahas A (2009) Normal fault rupture interaction with strip foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 135(3):359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, pp 438–483Google Scholar
  5. Baturay MB, Stewart JP (2003) Uncertainty and bias in ground-motion estimates from ground response analyses. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(5):2025–2042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (1999) Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(2):501–520Google Scholar
  7. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2002) Vector-valued probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (VPSHA). In: Proceedings of 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, MA, July 21–25, Paper No. 61Google Scholar
  8. Bommer JJ, Martinez-Pereira A (1999) The effective duration of earthquake strong motion. J Earthq Eng 3(2):127–172Google Scholar
  9. Chapman MC (1999) On the use of elastic input energy for seismic hazard analysis. Earthq Spectra 15(4):607–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delavaud E, Cotton F, Akkar S, Scherbaum F, Danciu L, Beauval C, Drouet S, Douglas J, Basili R, Sandikkaya MA, Segou M, Faccioli E, Theodoulidis N (2012) Toward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe. J Seismol 16(3):451–473. doi: 10.1007/s10950-012-9281-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Douglas J (2010) Consistency of ground-motion predictions from the past four decades. Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1515–1526. doi: 10.1007/s10518-010-9195-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas J (2011) Ground-motion prediction equations 1964–2010, Final report, BRGM/RP-59356-FR (PEER 2011/102), 444 pages, 9 (illustrations)Google Scholar
  13. Douglas J (2012) Consistency of ground-motion predictions from the past four decades: peak ground velocity and displacement, Arias intensity and relative significant duration. Bull Earthq Eng 10(5):1339–1356. doi: 10.1007/s10518-012-9359-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglas J, Aochi H (2008) A survey of techniques for predicting earthquake ground motions for engineering purposes. Surv Geophys 29(3):187–220. doi: 10.1007/s10712-008-9046-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faccioli E, Anastasopoulos I, Callerio A, Gazetas G (2008) Fault rupture-foundation interaction: selected case histories. Bull Earthq Eng 6(4):557–583. doi: 10.1007/s10518-008-9089-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fotopoulou S, Pitilakis K (2012) Vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings subjected to seismically triggered slow-moving earth slides. Landslides. doi: 10.1007/s10346-012-0345-5
  17. Fotopoulou S, Pitilakis K (2013) Fragility curves for reinforced concrete buildings to seismically triggered slow-moving slides. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 48:143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galli P, Galadini F (2001) Surface faulting of archeological relics. A review of case histories from the Dead Sea to the Alps. Tectonophysics 335(3):291–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallipoli MR, Bianca M, Mucciarelli M, Parolai S, Picozzi M (2013) Topographic versus stratigraphic amplification: mismatch between code provisions and observations during the L’Aquila (Italy, 2009) sequence. Bull Earthq Eng 11(5):1325–1336. doi: 10.1007/s10518-013-9446-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garini E, Gazetas G (2013) Damage potential of near-fault records: sliding displacement against conventional intensity measures. Bull Earthq Eng 11(2):455–480Google Scholar
  21. Garini E, Gazetas G, Anastasopoulos I (2011) Asymmetric ‘Newmark’ sliding caused by motions containing severe ‘directivity’ and ‘fling’ pulses. Géotechnique 61(9):753–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gazetas G, Loli M, Anastasopoulos I (2014) Effects of permanent ground displacements due to near fault conditions on the seismic performance of masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng (this issue)Google Scholar
  23. Gazetas G (2012) Some presumptions on the nature of base excitation may erroneously affect the response of strongly inelastic systems. In: Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE), Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  24. Gazetas G, Garini E, Anastasopoulos I (2009) Effects of near-fault ground shaking on sliding systems. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 135(12):1906–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gehl P, Seyedi DM, Douglas J (2013) Vector-valued fragility functions for seismic risk evaluation. Bull Earthq Eng 11(2):365–384. doi: 10.1007/s10518-012-9402-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gelagoti F, Kourkoulis R, Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2012) Nonlinear dimensional analysis of trapezoidal valleys subjected to vertically propagating SV waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(3):199–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gelagoti F, Kourkoulis R, Anastasopoulos I, Tazoh T, Gazetas G (2010) Seismic wave propagation in a very soft alluvial valley: sensitivity to ground motion“details” and soil nonlinearity, generation of parasitic vertical component. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(6):3035–3054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goda K, Atkinson GM (2009) Probabilistic characterization of spatially correlated response spectra for earthquakes in Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(5):3003–3020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2005) The effective number of cycles of earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:637–664. doi: 10.1002/eqe.437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Housner GW (1959) Behavior of structures during earthquakes. J Eng Mech Div, ASCE 85(EM14):109–129Google Scholar
  31. Jayaram N, Baker JW (2009) Correlation model for spatially distributed ground motion intensities. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(15):1687–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karakhanian AS, Trifonov VG, Ivanova TP, Avagyan A, Rukieh M, Minini H, Dodonov AE, Bachmanov DM (2008) Seismic deformation in the St. Simeon Monasteries (Qal’at Sim’an), Northwestern Syria. Tectonophysics 453(1–4):122–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2014) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng (this issue)Google Scholar
  34. Lagomarsino S, Modaressi H, Pitilakis K, Bosjlikov V, Calderini C, D’Ayala D, Benouar D, Cattari S (2010) PERPETUATE Project: the proposal of a performance-based approach to earthquake protection of cultural heritage. Adv Mater Res 133–134:1119–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lagomarsino S, Abbas N, Calderini C, Cattari S., Rossi M, Ginanni Corradini R, Marghella G, Mattolin F, Piovanello V (2011) Classification of cultural heritage assets and seismic damage variables for the identification of performance levels. In: Proceedings of structural repairs and maintenance of heritage architecture conference (STREMAH), WIT Press, pp. 697–708 ISSN 1743–3509Google Scholar
  36. Loli M, Bransby MF, Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2010) Interaction of caisson foundations with a seismically rupturing normal fault: centrifuge testing versus numerical simulation. Geotechnique 62(1):29–43Google Scholar
  37. Miranda E, Bertero VV (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthq Spectra 10(2):357–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Negulescu C, Foerster E (2010) Parametric studies and quantitative assessment of the vulnerability of a RC frame building exposed to differential settlements. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(9):1781–1792. doi: 10.5194/nhess-10-1781-2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oliveira CS (2003) Seismic vulnerability of historical constructions: a contribution. Bull Earthq Eng 1(1):37–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pace B, Albarello D, Boncio P, Dolce M, Galli P, Messina P, Peruzza L, Sabetta F, Sanò T, Visini F (2011) Predicted ground motion after the L’Aquila 2009 earthquake (Italy, \(\text{ M }_{{\rm w}}\) 6.3): input spectra for seismic microzoning. Bull Earthq Eng 9(1):199–230. doi:  10.1007/s10518-010-9238-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paolucci R, Smerzini C (2008) Earthquake-induced transient ground strains from dense seismic networks. Earthq Spectra 24(2):453–470. doi: 10.1193/1.2923923 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pitilakis K (2004) In: Ansal A (eds) Site effects, recent advances in earthquake geotechnical engineering and microzonation. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  43. Pitilakis D, Clouteau D (2010) Equivalent linear substructure approximation of soil-foundation-structure interaction: model presentation and validation. Bull Earthq Eng 8(2):257–282. doi: 10.1007/s10518-009-9128-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pitilakis D, Karatzetzou A (2014) Impedance functions of flexible foundations to assess soil-foundation-structure interaction in masonry monumental buildings. Bull Earthq Eng (this issue)Google Scholar
  45. Pitilakis K, Riga E, Anastasiadis A (2012) Design spectra and amplification factors for Eurocode 8. Bull Earthq Eng 10(5):1377–1400. doi: 10.1007/s10518-012-9367-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pitilakis K, Riga E, Anastasiadis A (2013a) New code site classification, amplification factors and normalized response spectra based on a worldwide ground-motion database. Bull Earthq Eng 11(4):925–966. doi: 10.1007/s10518-013-9429-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pitilakis K, Riga E, Anastasiadis A (2013b) Erratum to: new code site classification, amplification factors and normalized response spectra based on a worldwide ground-motion database. Bull Earth Eng 11(4):967. doi: 10.1007/s10518-013-9440-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pitilakis D, Moderessi-Farahmand-Razavi A, Clouteau D (2013c) Equivalent-linear dynamic impedance functions of surface foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(7):1130–1139. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement-based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, Pavia 721Google Scholar
  50. Rathje EM, Faraj F, Russell S, Bray JD (2004) Empirical relationships for frequency content parameters of earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 20(1):119–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seyedi DM, Gehl P, Douglas J, Davenne L, Mezher N, Ghavamian S (2010) Development of seismic fragility surfaces for reinforced concrete buildings by means of nonlinear time-history analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:91–108. doi: 10.1002/eqe.939 Google Scholar
  52. Toh JCW, Pender MJ (2008) Earthquake performance and permanent displacements of shallow foundations. In: Proceedings of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, paper number 40Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Douglas
    • 1
  • Darius M. Seyedi
    • 1
  • Thomas Ulrich
    • 1
  • Hormoz Modaressi
    • 1
  • Evelyne Foerster
    • 1
  • Kyriazis Pitilakis
    • 2
  • Dimitris Pitilakis
    • 2
  • Anna Karatzetzou
    • 2
  • George Gazetas
    • 3
  • Evangelia Garini
    • 3
  • Marianna Loli
    • 3
  1. 1.BRGMOrléansFrance
  2. 2.Aristotle University of ThessalonikiThessaloníkiGreece
  3. 3.National Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations