Development of a fragility and vulnerability model for global seismic risk analyses

Abstract

Seismic fragility and vulnerability assessment is an essential step in the evaluation of probabilistic seismic risk. Ideally, models developed and calibrated for the building portfolio of interest would be readily available. However, the lack of damage data and insufficient analytical studies lead to a paucity of fragility and vulnerability models, in particular in the developing world. This study describes the development of an analytical fragility and vulnerability model covering the most common building classes at the global scale. Nearly five hundred functions were developed to cover the majority of combinations of construction material, height, lateral load resisting system and seismic design level. The fragility and vulnerability were derived using nonlinear time-history analyses on equivalent single-degree-of-freedom oscillators and a large set of ground motion records representing several tectonic environments. The resulting fragility and vulnerability functions were validated through a series of tests which include the calculation of the average annual loss ratio for a number of locations, the comparison of probabilities of collapse across all building classes, and the repetition of past seismic events. The set of vulnerability functions was used for the assessment of economic losses due to earthquakes as part of the global seismic risk model supported by the Global Earthquake Model Foundation.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://github.com/lmartins88/global_fragility_vulnerability.

  2. 2.

    Global Seismic Risk Map: https://maps.openquake.org/map/global-seismic-risk-map/.

  3. 3.

    https://github.com/lmartins88/global_fragility_vulnerability.

References

  1. Abou-Elfath H, Ramadan M, Meshaly M, Fdiel HA (2017) Seismic performance of steel frames designed using different allowable story drift limits. Alexandria Eng J 56(2):241–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.08.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Acevedo AB, Jaramillo JD, Yepes C, Silva V, Osorio FA, Villar M (2017) Evaluation of the seismic risk of the unreinforced masonry building stock in Antioquia, Colombia. Nat Hazards 86(1):31–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2647-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmad N, Crowley H, Pinho R, Ali Q (2010) Displacement-based earthquake loss assessment of masonry buildings in Mansehra City, Pakistan. J Earthq Eng 14(Sup1):1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632461003651794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alcocer S, Guillermo J, Vazquez A (2004) Response assessment of Mexican confined masonry structures through shaking table tests. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada

  5. Asprone D, Jalayer F, Simonelli S, Acconcia A, Prota A, Manfredi G (2013) Seismic insurance model for the Italian residential building stock. Struct Saf 44:70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2013.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bal IE, Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Crowley H, Pinho R (2010a) The influence of geographical resolution of urban exposure data in an earthquake loss model for Istanbul. Earthq Spectra 26(3):619–634. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3459127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bal, İ.E., Crowley, H. and Pinho, R. (2010b) Displacement-based earthquake loss assessment: method development and application to turkish building stock. Research Report No. ROSE-2010-02, Instituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia

  8. Bommer J, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydinoglu N, Booth E, del Re D, Peterken O (2002) Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance. J Seismol 6(3):431–446. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020095711419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Alarcón JE (2009) Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion empirical equations for the prediction of the duration of earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(6):3217–3233. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Borzi B, Crowley H, Pinho R (2008a) Simplified pushover-based earthquake loss assessment (SP-BELA) method for masonry buildings. Int J Archit Herit 2(4):353–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583050701828178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Borzi B, Pinho R, Crowley H (2008b) Simplified pushover-based vulnerability analysis for large-scale assessment of RC buildings. Eng Struct 30(3):804–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.05.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brzev S, Scawthorn C, Charleson LA, Greene M, Jaiswal K, Silva V (2013) GEM building taxonomy version 2.0. Vol. GEM Technical Report 2013-02 V1.0.0. Pavia, IT: GEM Foundation. 188

  13. Bull DK (2013) Earthquakes and the effects on structures: some of the lessons learnt. Aust J Struct Eng 14(2):145–166. https://doi.org/10.7158/S12-034.2013.14.2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Burby RJ, French SP, Nelson AC (1998) Plans, code enforcement, and damage reduction: evidence from the Northridge Earthquake. Earthq Spectra 14(1):59–74. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cabrera T, Hube MA, Santa Maria H, Silva V, Martins L, Yepes C, Cortes A (2019) Seismic vulnerability and fragility curves of houses based on damage data from three earthquakes in Chile. Earthq Spectra, (in review)

  16. Calvi GM (1999) A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evaluation of classes of buildings. J Earthq Eng 3(3):411–438

    Google Scholar 

  17. Calvi GM (2010) Engineers understanding of earthquakes demand and structures response. In Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, p 223–247

  18. Calvi GM, Pinho R (2004) LESSLOSS: a European integrated project on risk mitigation for earthquakes and landslides. Research report ROSE. University of Pavia Distribuito da IUSS Press, Pavia. vi, 178

  19. Calvi G, Pinho R, Crowley H (2006) State-of-the-knowledge on the period elongation of RC buildings during strong ground shaking

  20. Camelo V (2003) Dynamic characteristics of woodframe buildings, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology

  21. Casotto C, Silva V, Crowley H, Nascimbene R, Pinho R (2015) Seismic fragility of Italian RC precast industrial structures. Eng Struct 94:122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.02.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Crespi P, Giordano N, Frascaro G (2019) Seismic loss estimation of an old masonry building in Italy. In: ICASP13—13th international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering, Seoul, South Korea

  23. Crowley H, Pinho R (2004) Period-Height relationship for existing European reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthq Eng 8(Sup001):93–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460409350522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Crowley H, Pinho R (2006) Simplified equations for estimating the period of vibration of existing buildings. In: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology

  25. Crowley H, Pinho R (2010) Revisiting Eurocode 8 formulae for periods of vibration and their employment in linear seismic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(2):223–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ (2004) A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 2(2):173–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-004-2290-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Crowley H, Polidoro B, Pinho R, van Elk J (2017) Framework for developing fragility and consequence models for local personal risk. Earthq Spectra 33(4):1325–1345. https://doi.org/10.1193/083116eqs140m

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Crowley H, Rodrigues D, Silva V, Despotaki V, Romao X, Castro JM, Akkar S, Hancılar U, Pitilakis KPD, Belvaux M, Wiemer S, Danciu L, Correia AA, Bursi OS, Wenzel M (2018) Towards a uniform earthquake risk model for Europe. In: 16th European conference on earthquake engineering. Thessaloniki, Greece

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

  30. Del Gaudio C, De Risi MT, Ricci P, Verderame GM (2019) Empirical drift-fragility functions and loss estimation for infills in reinforced concrete frames under seismic loading. Bull Earthq Eng 17(3):1285–1330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0501-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Di Pasquale G, Goretti A (2001) Vulnerabilità funzionale ed economica degli edifici residenziali colpiti dai recenti eventi sismici italiani. In: Proceedings of the 10th national conference “L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia”. Potenza-Matera, Italy

  32. Dolce M, Kappos A, Masi A, Penelis G, Vona M (2006) Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies. Eng Struct 28(3):357–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dolšek M (2012) Simplified method for seismic risk assessment of buildings with consideration of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. Struct Infrastruct Eng 8(10):939–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.574813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2008) The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of a four-storey reinforced concrete frame: a deterministic assessment. Eng Struct 30(7):1991–2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dymiotis C, Kappos AJ, Chryssanthopoulos MK (1999) Seismic reliability of RC frames with uncertain drift and member capacity. J Struct Eng 125(9):1038–1047. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:9(1038)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Eads L, Miranda E, Lignos DG (2015) Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(12):2057–2073. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Elnashai AS, Di Sarno L (2008) Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Wiley, Chichester, p 347

    Google Scholar 

  38. Erberik MA (2008a) Fragility-based assessment of typical mid-rise and low-rise RC buildings in Turkey. Eng Struct 30(5):1360–1374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Erberik MA (2008b) Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in-plane failure modes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(3):387–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Erdik M, Aydinoglu N, Fahjan Y, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu M, Siyahi B, Durukal E, Ozbey C, Biro Y, Akman H, Yuzugullu O (2003) Earthquake risk assessment for Istanbul metropolitan area. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02857534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. FEMA (2003) FEMA 450-1 : NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, FEMA 450-1, Department of Homeland Security - Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC

  42. FEMA (2014) HAZUS-MH MR5, Technical manual, Department of Homeland Security - Federal Emergency Management Agency

  43. FEMA (2017) FEMA P366-estimated annualized earthquake losses for the United States. FEMA P-366, Department of Homeland Security - Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC

  44. Ferreira TM, Maio R, Vicente R, Costa A (2016) Earthquake risk mitigation: the impact of seismic retrofitting strategies on urban resilience. Int J Strategic Prop Manag 20(3):291–304. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2016.1187682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. García H, Degrande G (2017) Performance and seismic vulnerability of a typical confined masonry house used in Cuenca Ecuador. In: Proceedings of the 16th World conference on earthquake engineering. Santiago, Chile

  46. Gautam D, Chaulagain H (2016) Structural performance and associated lessons to be learned from world earthquakes in Nepal after 25 April 2015 (MW 7.8) Gorkha earthquake. Eng Fail Anal 68:222–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ghobarah A (2004) On drift limits with different damage levels. In: Proceedings of international workshop on performance-based seismic design concepts and implementation. Bled, Slovenia

  48. Grubišić M, Kalman Šipoš T, Sigmund V (2013) Seismic fragility assessment of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames. In: 50th SE-EEE: Skopje, North Macedonia

  49. Gupta A, Krawinkler H (2000) Behavior of ductile SMRFs at various seismic hazard levels. J Struct Eng 126(1):98–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:1(98)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hamzeh L, Ashour A, Galal K (2018) Development of fragility curves for reinforced-masonry structural walls with boundary elements. J Perform Constr Facil 32(4):04018034. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Haselton CB, Goulet CA, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, Dierlein GG, Porter KA, Stewart JP, Taciroglu E (2008) An assessment to benchmark the seismic performance of a code-confirming reinforced concrete moment-frame building, PEER report 2007/12, PEER - Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

  52. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Deierlein GG, Dean BS, Chou JH (2011) Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. I: assessment of ductile moment frames. J Struct Eng 137(4):481–491. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hoult R, Goldsworthy H, Lumantarna E (2019) Fragility functions for RC shear wall buildings in Australia. Earthq Spectra 35(1):333–360. https://doi.org/10.1193/120717EQS251M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hwang S-H, Lignos DG (2017) Earthquake-induced loss assessment of steel frame buildings with special moment frames designed in highly seismic regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(13):2141–2162. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jaiswal KS, Wald DJ (2011) Rapid estimation of the economic consequences of global earthquakes. Open File Report 2011-1116, U.S. Geological Survey

  56. Jaiswal K, Wald D, Porter K (2010) A global building inventory for earthquake loss estimation and risk management. Earthq Spectra 26(3):731–748. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3450316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Jalayer F, De Risi R, Manfredi G (2015) Bayesian cloud analysis: efficient structural fragility assessment using linear regression. Bull Earthq Eng 13(4):1183–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9692-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kappos A, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):391–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9023-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Karanikoloudis G, Lourenço PB (2018) Structural assessment and seismic vulnerability of earthen historic structures: application of sophisticated numerical and simple analytical models. Eng Struct 160:488–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.12.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D, Spillatura A (2017) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(10):1667–1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kohrangi M, Kotha SR, Bazzurro P (2018) Ground-motion models for average spectral acceleration in a period range: direct and indirect methods. Bull Earthq Eng 16(1):45–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0216-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Lallemant D, Kiremidjian A, Burton H (2015) Statistical procedures for developing earthquake damage fragility curves. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(9):1373–1389. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lazar N, Dolšek M (2014) Incorporating intensity bounds for assessing the seismic safety of structures: does it matter? Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(5):717–738. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Liel AB, Luco N, Raghunandan M, Champion CP (2015) Modifications to risk-targeted seismic design maps for subduction and near-fault hazards. In: 12th International conference on applications of statistics and probability in Civil Engineering, ICASP 2015

  66. Liu J, Liu Y, Liu H (2010) Seismic fragility analysis of composite frame structure based on performance. Earthq Sci 23(1):45–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11589-009-0049-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lotfy I, Mohammadalizadeh T, Ahmadi F, Soroushian S (2019) Fragility functions for displacement-based seismic design of reinforced masonry wall structures. J Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1659881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lovon H, Tarque N, Silva V, Yepes-Estrada C (2018) Development of fragility curves for confined masonry buildings in Lima, Peru. Earthq Spectra 34(3):1339–1361. https://doi.org/10.1193/090517eqs174m

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Martins L, Silva V, Marques M, Crowley H, Delgado R (2016) Development and assessment of damage-to-loss models for moment-frame reinforced concrete buildings. Earth Eng Struct Dyn 45(5):797–817. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Martins L, Silva V, Bazzurro P, Marques M (2018) Advances in the derivation of fragility functions for the development of risk-targeted hazard maps. Eng Struct 173:669–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. McKenna F, Fenves G, Scott M, Jeremic B (2000) Open system for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley, CA

  72. Motamed H, Calderon A, Silva V, Costa C (2018) Development of a probabilistic earthquake loss model for Iran

  73. Mouroux P, Brun BL (2006) Presentation of RISK-UE project. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):323–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9020-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Murcia-Delso J, Shing PB (2012) Fragility analysis of reinforced masonry shear walls. Earthq Spectra 28(4):1523–1547. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Pagani M, Garcia-Pelaez J, Gee R, Johnson K, Silva V, Simionato M, Styron R, Vigano D, Danciu L, Monelli D, Poggi V, Weatherill G (2019) The 2018 version of the global earthquake model: hazard component. Earthquake Spectra

  76. Plumier A, Doneux C (2001) Seismic behaviour and design of composite steel concrete structures. ICONS Report no. 4, LNEC-Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal

  77. Preciado A, Ramirez-Gaytan A, Santos JC, Rodriguez O (2020) Seismic vulnerability assessment and reduction at a territorial scale on masonry and adobe housing by rapid vulnerability indicators: the case of Tlajomulco, Mexico. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 44:101425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Ramirez CM, Lignos DG, Miranda E, Kolios D (2012) Fragility functions for pre-Northridge welded steel moment-resisting beam-to-column connections. Eng Struct 45:574–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Riahi Z, Elwood Kenneth J, Alcocer Sergio M (2009) Backbone model for confined masonry walls for performance-based seismic design. J Struct Eng 135(6):644–654. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Rossetto T, Elnashai A (2003) Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data. Eng Struct 25(10):1241–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0141-0296(03)00060-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Grant D, Maqsood T (2014) Guidelines for empirical vulnerability assessment. GEM Technical Report 2014-08 V1.0.0, Global Earthquake Model Foundation, Pavia, Italy

  82. Salgado-Gálvez, M., Zuloaga Romero, D., Bernal, G., Mora, M. and Cardona, O. (2013) Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of the building stock in Medellín, Colombia. In: International symposium, computational civil engineering. Iasi, Romania

  83. Schnedler W (2005) Likelihood estimation for censored random vectors. Econom Rev 24(2):195–217. https://doi.org/10.1081/ETC-200067925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Sen TK (2009) Fundamentals of seismic loading on structures. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, p 384

    Google Scholar 

  85. Silva V, Crowley H, Pinho R, Varum H (2013) Extending displacement-based earthquake loss assessment (DBELA) for the computation of fragility curves. Eng Struct 56:343–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.04.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H, Pinho R (2014a) Seismic risk assessment for mainland Portugal. Bull Earthq Eng, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9630-0

  87. Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H, Pinho R, Sousa L (2014b) Investigation of the characteristics of Portuguese regular moment-frame RC buildings and development of a vulnerability model. Bull Earthq Eng, pp 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9669-y

  88. Silva V, Casotto C, Rao A, Villar M, Crowley H, Vamvatsikos D (2015) OpenQuake Risk Modeller’s toolkit - user guide, Technical Report 2015–09, Global Earthquake Model Foundation, Pavia, Italy

  89. Silva V, Yepes-Estrada C, Dabbeek J, Martins L (2017) GED4ALL—global exposure database for multi-hazard risk analysis—inception report. GEM Technical Report 2017-01, GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy

  90. Silva V, Amo-Oduro D, Calderon A, Costa C, Dabbeek J, Despotaki V, Martins L, Pagani M, Rao A, Simionato M, Viganò D, Yepes-Estrada C, Acevedo A, Crowley H, Horspool N, Jaiswal K, Journeay M, Pittore M (2019) Development of a global seismic risk model. Earthq Spectra. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019899953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Snoj J, Dolšek M (2017) Fragility functions for unreinforced masonry walls made from hollow clay units. Eng Struct 145:293–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. So E (2016) Estimating fatality rates for earthquake loss models. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  93. Sousa L, Silva V, Marques M, Crowley H (2016) On the treatment of uncertainties in the development of fragility functions for earthquake loss estimation of building portfolios. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Sousa L, Silva V, Marques M, Crowley H (2018) On the treatment of uncertainty in seismic vulnerability and portfolio risk assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(1):87–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Stafford PJ (2008) Conditional prediction of absolute durationsshort note. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(3):1588–1594. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120070207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Strasser FO, Bommer JJ, Şeşetyan K, Erdik M, Çağnan Z, Irizarry J, Goula X, Lucantoni A, Sabetta F, Bal IE, Crowley H, Lindholm C (2008) A comparative study of european earthquake loss estimation tools for a scenario in Istanbul. J Earthq Eng 12(sup2):246–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460802014188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Tarque N, Crowley H, Pinho R, Varum H (2010) Seismic risk assessment of adobe dwellings in Cusco, Peru, based on mechanical procedures. In: 14th European conference on earthquake engineering Ohrid, North Macedonia

  98. Tarque N, Crowley H, Pinho R, Varum H (2012) Displacement-based fragility curves for seismic assessment of adobe buildings in Cusco, Peru. Earthq Spectra 28(2):759–794. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Tomaževič M, Gams M (2012) Shaking table study and modelling of seismic behaviour of confined AAC masonry buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 10(3):863–893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9331-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Tomaževič M, Klemenc I (1997) Verification of seismic resistance of confined masonry buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26(10):1073–1088. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9845(199710)26:10%3c1073:Aid-eqe695%3e3.0.Co;2-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Tondini N, Zanon G, Pucinotti R, Di Filippo R, Bursi OS (2018) Seismic performance and fragility functions of a 3D steel-concrete composite structure made of high-strength steel. Eng Struct 174:373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Ulrich T, Negulescu C, Douglas J (2014) Fragility curves for risk-targeted seismic design maps. Bull Earthq Eng 12(4):1479–1491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9572-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Vamvatsikos D, Allin Cornell C (2006) Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through IDA. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1097–1117. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Vásquez L, Hernández G, Campos R, González M (2012) Caracterización mecánica de muros estructurales de madera, Technical Report No. 191, Instituto Forestal, Chile

  105. Villar-Vega M, Silva V, Crowley H, Yepes C, Tarque N, Acevedo AB, Hube MA, Gustavo CD, María HS (2017) Development of a fragility model for the residential building stock in South America. Earthq Spectra 33(2):581–604. https://doi.org/10.1193/010716eqs005m

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson N (2006) Selection of ground motion time series and limits on scaling. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(5):477–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Yañez F, Astroza M, Holmerg A, Ogaz O (2004) Behavior of confined masonry shear walls with large openings. In: Proceedings of the 13th World conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver, Canada

  108. Yepes-Estrada C, Silva V, Rossetto T, D’Ayala D, Ioannou I, Meslem A, Crowley H (2016) The global earthquake model physical vulnerability database. Earthq Spectra 32(4):2567–2585. https://doi.org/10.1193/011816eqs015dp

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luís Martins.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martins, L., Silva, V. Development of a fragility and vulnerability model for global seismic risk analyses. Bull Earthquake Eng (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00885-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fragility assessment
  • Vulnerability assessment
  • Seismic risk assessment
  • Global database