Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empirical seismic vulnerability analysis for masonry buildings based on school buildings survey in Iran

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

Abstract

School facilities in Iran, in particular masonry schools, have shown poor performance during past earthquakes and can be identified as one of the parts of the country’s infrastructure that is most vulnerable to earthquakes. Hence, in this paper a method to perform index-based damage assessment for brick masonry schools located in the province of Yazd, the central region of Iran, using a comprehensive database of school buildings, is proposed. The database was obtained from the field survey forms applied for each observed school to collect the features of and damage to the structure. The results of a vulnerability index method developed in Iran are employed as input data to obtain empirical fragility curves for the school inventory. The Macroseismic model and GNDT II level method are two empirical methods combined in this procedure. Finally, the procedure is verified using damage survey data obtained after recent earthquakes (1990 Manjil–Rudbar earthquake and 2003 Bam earthquake) that occurred in Iran.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The decreasing order of credibility is valid only for an ideal situation and does not reflect reality. In reality a number of issues can influence existing vulnerability functions.

  2. The PGA value corresponds to an exceedance probability of 10 % in 50 years (useful building age), or a 475-year return period.

  3. Here, buildings meeting the basic safety objective are expected to have life safety, as the target performance level, under an earthquake hazard level with the exceedance probability of 10 % in 50 years.

References

  • ASCE 31-03 (2003) Seismic evaluation of existing buildings. Standards. American Society of Civil Engineers. doi:10.1061/9780784406700

  • ATC-13 (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City

    Google Scholar 

  • ATC-21 (1988) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook. FEMA-145. ATC, Redwood City

    Google Scholar 

  • ATC-58 (2003) Preliminary evaluation of methods for defining performance. ATC, Redwood City, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhshi A, Karimi K (2008) Performance evaluation of masonry buildings using a probabilistic approach. Scientia Iranica 15:295–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Bal İE, Crowley H, Pinho R, Gülay FG (2008) Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of Turkish RC building stock for loss assessment models. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:914–932. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendimerad F (2001) Loss estimation: a powerful tool for risk assessment and mitigation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21:467–472. doi:10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00022-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedetti D, Petrini V (1984) On seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings: proposal of an evaluation procedure. L’Industria delle Costruzioni 18:66–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Berberian M (1997) 100 years; 126,000 deaths. Encyclopaedia Iranica. http://iranian.com/Iranica/June97/Earthquake/Text2.html

  • Bernardini A, Gori R, Modena C (1990) Application of coupled analytical models and experimental knowledge to seismic vulnerability analyses of masonry buildings. In: Koridze A (ed) Earthquake damage evaluation and vulnerability analysis of building structures. Omega Scientific, Oxon, p 176

    Google Scholar 

  • BHRC (2012) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings (standard No. 2800-91) No. S – 465, 4th edn. Building & Housing Research Center Publication, Tehran

  • Blong R (2003) A new damage index. Nat Hazards 30:1–23. doi:10.1023/A:1025018822429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borzi B, Crowley H, Pinho R (2008) Simplified pushover-based earthquake loss assessment (SP-BELA) method for masonry buildings. Int J Archit Herit 2:353–376. doi:10.1080/15583050701828178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D (1982) A statistical study on damaged buildings and an ensuing review of the MSK-76 scale. In: Seventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Athens, Greece, pp 431–450

  • Bramerini F, Di Pasquale G, Orsini A, Pugliese A, Romeo R, Sabetta F (1995) Rischio sismico del territorio italiano. Proposta per una metodologia e risultati preliminari. Rapporto tecnico del Servizio Sismico Nazionale (SSN), Roma, Italy

  • Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Vélez LF, Crowley H (2006) Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET J Earthq Technol 43:75–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceran H, Erberik M (2013) Effect of out-of-plane behavior on seismic fragility of masonry buildings in Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng 11:1775–1795. doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9449-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CNR—Istituto per le Tecnologie della Costruzione (2007) Rilevamento della vulnerabilità sismica degli edifici in muratura; Manuale per la compilazione della Scheda GNDT/CNR di II livello. OPCM 3362/2004. Protezione Civile, Regione Abruzzo, Italy

  • Coburn AW, Spence RJS, Pomonis A (1994) Vulnerability and risk assessment. Disaster Management Training Programme (DMTP) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Cambridge Architectural Research Limited, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Corsanego A, Petrini V (1994) Evaluation of criteria of seismic vulnerability of the existing building patrimony on the national territory. Seism Eng 1:16–24

    Google Scholar 

  • CSSC (1999) Earthquake risk management: a toolkit for decision-makers. California Seismic Safety Commission, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Ayala D, Speranza E (2003) Definition of collapse mechanisms and seismic vulnerability of historic masonry buildings. Earthq Spectra 19:479–509. doi:10.1193/1.1599896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Ayala D, Meslem A, Vamvatsikos D, Porter K, Rossetto T (2015) Guidelines for analytical vulnerability assessment of low/mid-rise buildings. GEM Foundation, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimi A, Mahdizadeh A (2012) Initial report on Ahar Varzaghan earthquake with the focus on schools performance (in Persian). The State Organization of Schools Renovation, Development and Mobilization of Iran, Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  • Erberik MA (2008) Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in-plane failure modes. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 37:387–405. doi:10.1002/eqe.760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdik M et al (2003) Earthquake risk assessment for Istanbul metropolitan area. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2:1–23. doi:10.1007/BF02857534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEMA (1999) HAZUS earthquake loss estimation methodology: technical manual, vol 1. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • FEMA (2010) Design guide for improving school safety in earthquakes, floods, and high winds, FEMA P-424. Risk Management Series. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Gholipour Y, Bozorgnia Y, Rahnama M, Berberian M, Shojataheri J (2008) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Phase I—Greater Tehran Regions. Faculty of Engineering. University of Tehran, Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  • Giovinazzi S (2005) The vulnerability assessment and the damage scenario in seismic risk analysis. University of Florence and Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina at Braunschweig

  • Grünthal G (1998) Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et Séismologie: Volume 15—European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). Eur. Cent. Geodyn. Seismol., Luxembourg

  • Guagenti E, Petrini V (1989) The case of old buildings: towards a damage-intensity relationship In: 4th Italian National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (in Italian), Milano, Italia, pp 145–153

  • Hill M, Rossetto T (2008) Do existing damage scales meet the needs of seismic loss estimation? In: 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, pp 12–17

  • Jaiswal K, Aspinall W, Perkins D, Wald D, Porter KA (2012) Use of expert judgement to estimate seismic vulnerability of selected building types. In: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal

  • Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (2000) The study on seismic microzoning of the greater Tehran area in the islamic Republic of Iran. Pacific Consultants International, OYO Corporation, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang K (2002) Seismic vulnerability of existing buildings. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich

  • Mahdizadeh A (2011) Country report on retrofit procedure of school buildings in Islamic Republic of Iran (in Persian). The State Organization of Schools Renovation, Development and Mobilization of Iran, Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  • Margottini C, Molin D, Serva L (1992) Intensity versus ground motion: a new approach using Italian data. Eng Geol 33:45–58. doi:10.1016/0013-7952(92)90034-V

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mostafaei H, Kabeyasawa T (2004) Investigation and analysis of damage to buildings during the 2003 Bam earthquake. Univ Tokyo Earthq Bull 79:107–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouroux P (2003) RISK-UE An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns. Final Report. European Commission, Brussels

  • Murphy JR, O’Brien LJ (1977) The correlation of peak ground acceleration amplitude with seismic intensity and other physical parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67:877–915

    Google Scholar 

  • Omidvar B, Gatmiri B, Derakhshan S (2012) Experimental vulnerability curves for the residential buildings of Iran. Nat Hazards 60:345–365. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-0019-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park J, Towashiraporn P, Craig JI, Goodno BJ (2009) Seismic fragility analysis of low-rise unreinforced masonry structures. Eng Struct 31:125–137. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.07.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasticier L, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M (2008) Non-linear seismic analysis and vulnerability evaluation of a masonry building by means of the SAP2000 V. 10 code. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 37:467–485. doi:10.1002/eqe.770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petal M (2008) Disaster prevention for schools. Guidance for education sector decision makers. UNISDR, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrini V (1993) Rischio sismico di edifici pubblici, parte I, Aspetti metodologici. Pubblicazione del GNDT-CNR, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter K et al (2012) Global vulnerability estimation methods for the global earthquake model. In: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 24–28

  • Rai DC (2005) Guideline for seismic evaluation and strengthening of existing buildings. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur

    Google Scholar 

  • Razzaghi MS, Ghafory-Ashtiany M (2012) A preliminary reconnaissance report on August 11th 2012, Varzaghan-Ahar twin earthquakes in NW of Iran. International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth’s Interior, Tehran, Iran

  • Roca A, Goula X, Susagna T, Chávez J, González M, Reinoso E (2006) A simplified method for vulnerability assessment of dwelling buildings and estimation of damage scenarios in Catalonia, Spain. Bull Earthq Eng 4:141–158. doi:10.1007/s10518-006-9003-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Grant DN, Maqsood T (2014) Guidelines for empirical vulnerability assessment. GEM Foundation, Pavia. doi:10.13117/GEM.VULN-MOD.TR2014.11

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Grant DN (2015) Existing empirical fragility and vulnerability functions: compendium and guide for selection. GEM Foundation, Pavia. doi:10.13117/GEM.VULN-MOD.TR2015.01

    Google Scholar 

  • Rota M, Penna A, Magenes G (2010) A methodology for deriving analytical fragility curves for masonry buildings based on stochastic nonlinear analyses. Eng Struct 32:1312–1323. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.01.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanada Y, Niousha A, Maeda M, Kabeyasawa T, Ghayamghamian M (2004) Building damage around Bam seismological observatory following the Bam, Iran earthquake of Dec. 26, 2003. Univ Tokyo Earthq Bull 79:95–105

    Google Scholar 

  • SOSRI (2015) The Iranian method for seismic vulnerability assessment of school buildings. http://www.dres.ir/faza/default.aspx

  • Tavakoli B, Tavakoli S (1993) Estimating the vulnerability and loss functions of residential buildings. Nat Hazards 7:155–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Technical Deputy of SOSRI (2012) A guideline for filling in the post-earthquake assessment forms for school buildings (in Persian). The State Organization of Schools Renovation, Development and Mobilization of Iran, Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney K, Khazai B, Tobin LT, Krimgold F (2005) Social and public policy issues following the 2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake. Earthq Spectra 21:513–534. doi:10.1193/1.2098928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timchenko I (2002) Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings on the basis of numerical analyses. In: 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK

  • Wald DJ, Quitoriano V, Heaton TH, Kanamori H (1999) Relationships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and modified Mercalli intensity in California. Earthq Spectra 15:557–564. doi:10.1193/1.1586058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman RV, Reed JW, Hong ST (1973) Earthquake damage probability matrices. In: Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy. pp 2531–2540

  • Wu Y-M, Teng T-L, Shin T-C, Hsiao N-C (2003) Relationship between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and intensity in Taiwan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:386–396. doi:10.1785/0120020097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yekrangnia M, Mahdizadeh A (2009) Unreinforced masonry buildings and earthquake (in Persian). The State Organization of Schools Renovation, Development and Mobilization of Iran, Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was sponsored by the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT) of Iran. The authors are very grateful to the State Organization of Schools Renovation and Mobilization of Iran for its help and provision of the school building database.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, ISISE, University of Minho, Azurém Campus, Guimarães, Portugal

    Hamed Azizi-Bondarabadi, Nuno Mendes, Paulo B. Lourenço & Neda H. Sadeghi

Authors
  1. Hamed Azizi-Bondarabadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nuno Mendes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paulo B. Lourenço
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Neda H. Sadeghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamed Azizi-Bondarabadi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Azizi-Bondarabadi, H., Mendes, N., Lourenço, P.B. et al. Empirical seismic vulnerability analysis for masonry buildings based on school buildings survey in Iran. Bull Earthquake Eng 14, 3195–3229 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9944-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9944-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation