Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Italian guidelines for seismic risk classification of constructions: technical principles and validation

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Italian “Guidelines for the seismic risk classification of constructions” approved in February 2017 define the technical principles for exploiting tax deductions with respect to seismic strengthening interventions on existing buildings (Sismabonus). Tax deductions represent a unique opportunity to improve the seismic safety of the existing Italian building stock. The guidelines are very simple and allow practitioners to deal with the sophisticated concepts behind modern seismic design, such as expected annual losses (EAL) and repair costs (expressed as a fraction of the Reconstruction Cost: %RC). The seismic risk classes of buildings and the class upgrade due to strengthening interventions can be assessed using the principles included in the guidelines. The seismic risk class is the minimum between the class defined by the building safety index at the ultimate limit state and the one related to the EAL. The latter class depends on the area under the curve of the expected losses, which is easily obtained by computing the safety index converted in the return period (annual frequency) at different limit states and the relevant %RC. This paper illustrates the technical principles at the base of the guidelines and the procedure used to calibrate the repair costs associated with the different limit states using the actual repair costs monitored in the reconstruction process following recent Italian earthquakes. Finally, simple tools to estimate the cost of the strengthening interventions to improve the seismic capacity at the life-safety limit states are provided.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price includes VAT (France)

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

References

  • Almufti I, Willford M (2013) REDi™ rating system: resilience-based earthquake design initiative for the next generation of buildings. ARUP, London

    Google Scholar 

  • ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. 555. Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, California

  • ATC 33 (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings: FEMA 273. Washington, DC

  • ATC 58 (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings: Volume 1 (Methodology). Redwood City, California

  • Baggio C, Bernardini A, Colozza R, Di Pasquale G, Dolce M, Goretti A, Martinelli A, Orsini G, Papa F, Zuccaro G, Pinto AV, Taucer F (2007) Field manual for post-earthquake damage and safety assessment and short term countermeasures (AeDES). EUR 22868 EN, Joint Research Centre, ISPRA, Italy

  • Braga F, Picchi C (2017) Valutazione del rischio sismico degli edifici, pp. 225–244. Da “Linee guida per la manutenzione.” (in Italian) CNIM, pubblicato da DEI, Tipografia del Genio Civile, seconda edizione aggiornata

  • Calvi GM (2013) Choices and criteria for seismic strengthening. J Earthq Eng 17:769–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.781556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvi GM, Sousa L, Ruggeri C (2016) Energy efficiency and seismic resilience: a common approach. In: Gardoni P, LaFave JM (eds) Multi-hazard approaches to civil infrastructure engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 165–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardone D, Perrone G (2017) Damage and loss sssessment of pre-70 RC frame buildings with FEMA P-58. J Earthq Eng 21(1):23–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1149893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattari S, Degli Abbati S, Ferretti D, Lagormarsino S, Ottonelli D, Tralli A (2014) Damage assessment of fortresses after the 2012 Emilia earthquake (Italy). Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):2333–2365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9520-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN-1998-1. European Committee for Standardization, Brussell, Belgium

  • CEN (2005) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 3: assessment and reofitting of buildings. EN-1998-3. European Committee for Standardization, Brussell, Belgium

  • Circolare n. 617 (2009) C.S.LL.PP: Instructions for the application of New technical code for constructions (in Italian). GU Serie Generale n.47 del 26–02–2009—Suppl. Ordinario n. 27. Rome, Italy

  • Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3, University of California, Berkeley

  • De Martino G, Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Moroni C, Manfredi G, Dolce M (2017) Estimation of repair costs for RC and masonry residential buildings based on damage data collected by post-earthquake visual inspection. Bull Earth Eng 15(4):1681–1706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0039-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deierlein GG, Krawinkler H, Cornell CA (2003) A framework for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: 7th Pacific conference on earthquake engineering. Christchurch, New Zealand

  • Del Gaudio C, De Martino G, Di Ludovico M, Manfredi G, Prota A, Ricci P, Verderame GM (2017) Empirical fragility curves from damage data on RC buildings after the 2009 L’ Aquila earthquake. Bull Earth Eng 15(4):1681–1706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0026-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Manfredi G (2016) Modelling beam-column joints and FRP strengthening in the seismic performance assessment of RC existing frames. Compos Struct 142:107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Vecchio C, Del Zoppo M, Di Ludovico M, Verderame GM, Prota A (2017) Comparison of available shear strengh model for non-conforming reinforced concrete columns. Eng Struct 148(1):312–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.06.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A, Prota A (2018a) Seismic retrofit of real beam-column joints using Fiber Reinforced Cement (FRC) composites. ASCE J Struct Eng 144(5):04018026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Pampanin S, Prota A (2018b) Repair costs of existing RC buildings damaged by the L’Aquila earthquake and comparison with FEMA P-58 predictions. Earthq Spectra 34(1):237–263. https://doi.org/10.1193/122916eqs257m

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A, Prota A, Manfredi G, Dolce M (2018c) Experimental investigation of exterior RC beam-column joints retrofitted with FRP systems. ASCE J Comp Constr 18(4):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Moroni C, Manfredi G, Dolce M (2017a) Reconstruction process of damaged residential buildings outside the historical centres after L’Aquila earthquake—Part I: light Reconstruction. Bull Earthq Eng 15(2):667–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9877-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Moroni C, Manfredi G, Dolce M (2017b) Reconstruction process of damaged residential buildings outside the historical centres after L’Aquila earthquake—Part II: heavy Reconstruction. Bull Earthq Eng 15(2):693–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9979-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. (in Italian) Doppiavoce: 210. ISBN 978-88-89972-50-2

  • Dolce M, Moroni C (2017). Classificazione del rischio sismico: perché considerare due indici?. (in Italian) Ingenio. https://www.ingenio-web.it/7018-classificazione-del-rischio-sismico-perche-considerare-due-indici

  • Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16:573–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEMA (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Frascadore R, Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Verderame GM, Manfredi G, Dolce M, Cosenza E (2015) Local strengthening of RC structures as a strategy for seismic risk mitigation at regional scale. Earthq Spectra 31(2):1083–1102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giovinazzi S, Pampanin S (2017) Simplified approaches for the seismic risk rating of reinforced concrete buildings and the selection of retrofit strategies. In: Proceedings of the ANIDIS XVI conference. Pistoia, Italy

  • Grünthal G (1998) European macroseismic scale 1998, European S. Centre Europèen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • IG (2017) Italian Government: Italian budget law 2017, comma 1-bis. (in Italian). GU Serie Generale n.297 del 21-12-2016—Suppl. Ordinario n. 57. Rome, Italy

  • Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earth Eng 4:415–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liel AB, Deierlein GG (2013) Cost-benefit evaluation of seismic risk mitigation alternatives for older concrete frame buildings. Earthq Eng Eur 29:1391–1411. https://doi.org/10.1193/030911EQS040M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ligabue V, Pampanin S, Savoia M (2017) Seismic performance of alternative risk-reduction retrofit strategies to support decision making. Bull Earthq Eng. (published online). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0291-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MI (2008) D.M. 14 Gennaio 2008 (D.M. 2008). Technical code for constructions (in Italian). G.U. n. 29 del 4/2/2008. Rome, Italy

  • Ministry Decree n.477 del 27/12/2016. Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Trasport, (in Italian) Italy. http://www.mit.gov.it/normativa/decreto-ministeriale-numero-477-del-27122016

  • Ministry Decree n.58 28/02/2017 Allegato A: linee guida per la classificazione del rischio sismico delle costruzioni (in Italian). Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Trasport, Italy. http://www.mit.gov.it/normativa/decreto-ministeriale-numero-58-del-28022017

  • MIT (2018) Aggiornamento delle « Norme tecniche per le costruzioni » (in Italian). Supplemento ordinario n. 8 alla Gazzetta ufficiale del 20-2-2018. Rome, Italy

  • NZSEE (2006) Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquakes (Corrigenda 3, 2014). New Zealand

  • O.P.C.M. 3274 (2003). Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica (in Italian). Supplemento G.U del 8/5/2003. Rome, Italy

  • O.P.C.M. 3362 (2004). Modalità di attivazione del fondo per interventi straordinari della Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, istituito ai sensi dell’art. 32-bis del D.L. 30 settembre 2003, n. 269, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla L. 24 novembre 2003, n. 326. (in Italian). G.U del 16/7/2004. Rome, Italy

  • O’Reilly GJ, Sullivan TJ (2018) Probabilistic seismic assessment and retrofit considerations for Italian RC frame buildings. Bull Earth Eng 16(3):1447–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0257-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottonelli D, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2015) A seismic loss assessment procedure for masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of the second ATC & SEI conference on improving the seismic performance of existing buildings and other structures, 10-12 December 2015, San Francisco, California, ASCE Library

  • Parisi F, Augenti N, Prota A (2014) Implications of the spandrel type on the lateral behavior of unreinforced masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43:1867–1887. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter KA (2003) An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: 9th International conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering. San Francisco, pp 973–980

  • Postiglione I, Masi A, Mucciarelli M, Lizza C, Camassi R, Bernabei V, Piacentini V, Chiaiuzzi L, Brugagnoni B, Cardoni A, Calcara A, Di Ludovico M, Giannelli M, Rita R, La Pietra M, Bernardini F, Nostro C, Pignone M, Peruzza L (2016) The Italian communication campaign “I do not take risks–earthquake”. Bollettino Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 57(2):147–160. https://doi.org/10.4430/bgta0173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regio Decreto Legge n. 573 del 29/4/1915 (1915) Che riguarda le norme tecniche ed igieniche da osservarsi per i lavori edilizi nelle località colpite dal terremoto del 13 gennaio 1915. G.U. n. 117 dell’11/5/1915 (in Italian)

  • ReLUIS, DPC, CNR-ITC (2009) C.I.N.E. Condizioni d’Instabilità degli Edifici—Applicativo per le verifiche sismiche dei meccanismi di collasso fuori dal piano negli edifici esistenti in muratura mediante analisi cinematica lineare (in Italian) http://www.reluis.it/doc/emergenza_terremoto_abruzzo/CINE_1.0.4.xls

  • US Resiliency Council (2016) USRC building ratings: dimensions and definitions. www.USRC.org

  • Welch DP, Sullivan TJ, Calvi GM (2012) Developing direct displacement based design and assessment procedures for performance based earthquake engineering. Pavia, Italy. RR: 2012/03 Pavia, Italy: 2012. ISBN: 978-88-6198-081-5

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper has been funded by the Consortium ReLUIS within the 2017 Project funded by the Department of Civil Protection. The Sismabonus guidelines could not become a reality without the strategic vision and the strong support of the President of the High Council for Public Works, Eng. Massimo Sessa. The Sismabonus guidelines are the results of ideas and work of many specialists representative of High Council for Public Works, academia and professional categories; the authors wish to recognize the crucial role of the coordinator of the Task Group, prof. Franco Braga.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

    Edoardo Cosenza, Ciro Del Vecchio, Marco Di Ludovico & Andrea Prota

  2. Department of Civil Protection, Rome, Italy

    Mauro Dolce & Claudio Moroni

  3. High Council for Public Works – Technical Central Service, Rome, Italy

    Emanuele Renzi

Authors
  1. Edoardo Cosenza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ciro Del Vecchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Di Ludovico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mauro Dolce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Claudio Moroni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andrea Prota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emanuele Renzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Di Ludovico.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cosenza, E., Del Vecchio, C., Di Ludovico, M. et al. The Italian guidelines for seismic risk classification of constructions: technical principles and validation. Bull Earthquake Eng 16, 5905–5935 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0431-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0431-8

Keywords

search

Navigation