Abstract
Several earthquakes have affected school infrastructure, compromising the safety of students and all the educational community. These damages are not caused solely by the action of earthquakes, but also by the lack of adequate seismic design, deficient construction practices, and lack of regulations and normative to ensure an appropriate quality for infrastructure. Therefore, to analyze how is the expected infrastructure behavior in earthquakes, this study presents a simplified methodology for the seismic vulnerability assessment of school buildings. The methodology includes several components: data collection, the characterization of Index Buildings, hazard definition, nonlinear numerical modeling of the structural response, seismic performance assessment and the vulnerability integration using a component-based approach. The novelty of the proposed methodology resides in the fact of its simplicity and robustness obtained by combining a simplified non-linear incremental static analysis together with a component-based vulnerability derivation methodology to assess the behavior of school buildings. This methodology is applied to a set of 11 Reinforced Concrete school building types representing common structural systems and seismic design levels. A number of sensitivity analyses are also carried out, varying the geometry, the foundation-soil flexibility, the mechanical properties of infill masonry walls, the non-structural elements and the analysis type, showing the versatility and reliability of the proposed methodology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abo-El-ezz A, Nolle MJ, Nastev M (2013) Seismic fragility assessment of low-rise stone masonry buildings. J Earthq Eng Eng Vib 12:87–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/ssll803-013-0154-4
ACI (2014) Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318–14). American Concrete Institute, USA
Adhikari RK (2021) A methodological framework for seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry school buildings: application to Nepal (doctoral dissertation). University College London
Aleskerov F, Say AI, Toker A et al (2005) A cluster-based decision support system for estimating earthquake damage and casualties. Disasters 29:255–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0361-3666.2005.00290.x
ASCE, SEI (2017a) ASCE 7-16: minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. Am Soc Civ Eng
ASCE, SEI (2017b) ASCE/SEI 41-17: American society of civil engineers, seismic evaluation and retrofi t of existing buildings. Am Soc Civ Eng
ATC (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California, ATC-13. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City
ATC (2005) FEMA 440: Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City
ATC (2009) FEMA P695: quantification of building seismic performance factors. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City
ATC (2012) FEMA P-58: seismic performance assessment of buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City
Baker JW (2011) Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct Eng 137:322–331. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000215
Bhatt C, Bento R (2011) Assessing the seismic response of existing RC buildings using the extended N2 method. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1183–1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9252-8
Building Seismic Safety Council (2003) FEMA 450: NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. National Institute of Builiding Sciences, Washington
Carrillo J (2004) Modelación del comportamiento inelástico de pórticos de concreto con mampostería no reforzada. Universidad de los Andes
Causevic M, Mitrovic S (2011) Comparison between non-linear dynamic and static seismic analysis of structures according to European and US provisions. Bull Earthq Eng 9:467–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9199-1
Chen H, Xie Q, Lan R et al (2017) Seismic damage to schools subjected to Nepal earthquakes, 2015. Nat Hazards 88:247–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2865-8
Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:561–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.144
Cremen G, Baker JW (2019) A methodology for evaluating component-level loss predictions of the FEMA P-58 seismic performance assessment procedure. Earthq Spectra 55:193–210. https://doi.org/10.1193/031618EQS061M
CSI Computer & Structures Inc (2004) SAP2000 - linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of three-dimensional structures
CSI Computer & Structures Inc (2016) PERFORM 3D - performed-based design of 3D structures
CSI Computer & Structures Inc (2020) ETABS - building analysis and design
D’Ayala D (2013) Assessing the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings. Handbook of seismic risk analysis and management of civil infrastructure systems. Elsevier, pp 334–365. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857098986.3.334
D’Ayala D, Meslem A, Vamvatsikos D et al (2015) Guidelines for analytical vulnerability assessment - low/mid-rise. GEM Tech Rep 12:162. https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM.VULN-MOD.TR2014.12
D’Ayala D, Galasso C, Nassirpour A et al (2020) Resilient communities through safer schools. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 45:101446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101446
Del Gaudio C, Ricci P, Verderame GM, Manfredi G (2015) Development and urban-scale application of a simplified method for seismic fragility assessment of RC buildings. Eng Struct 91:40–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.01.031
Der KA, Ditlevsen O (2009) Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Struct Saf 31:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.020
Di Trapani F, Shing PB, Cavaleri L (2018) Macroelement model for In-plane and Out-of-plane responses of masonry infills in frame structures. J Struct Eng 144:04017198. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001926
Digicon Engineering Consult, The World Bank (2016) Structural integrity and damage assessment (SIDA) for educational Infrastructures in Nepal
Dolšek M (2012) Simplified method for seismic risk assessment of buildings with consideration of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. Struct Infrastruct Eng 8:939–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.574813
Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2004) IN2 - a simple alternative for IDA. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering. p 15
Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2005) Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:49–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.411
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 30:1991–2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.01.001
EERI (2019) Concrete buildings damaged in earthquakes. Oakland, CA
Elwood KJ (2004) Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns. Can J Civ Eng 31:846–859. https://doi.org/10.1139/L04-040
European Committee for Standarization (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. CEN, EN 1998-1, Brussels
Ezzeldin M, Wiebe L, El-Dakhakhni W (2016) Seismic collapse risk assessment of reinforced masonry walls with boundary elements using the FEMA P695 methodology. J Struct Eng 142:04016108. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001579
Faella C, Lima C, Martinelli E (2008) Non-linear Static methods for seismic fragility analysis and reliability evaluation of existing structures. In: 14th World Conf Earthq Eng
Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16:573–592. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128
Fernández RI, Rincón R, Yamin LE (2019) Incertidumbre en el Beneficio Obtenido para Opciones de Reforzamiento Sísmico. In: IX Congreso Nacional de Ingeniería Sísmica. Cali, Colombia
Fernández R, Yamin L, Reyes JC, et al (2021) Mitigación del riesgo sísmico de la infraestructura escolar. In: Investigaciones en Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres para Colombia: Avances, Perspectivas y Casos de Estudio. Bogotá, pp 36–69
GEER (2016) GEER-ATC earthquake reconnaissance April 16th 2016, muisne, ecuador. Geotech extrem events reconnaiss assoc Rep GEER-049 604
GEER (2017) Geotechnical engineering reconnaissance of the 19 September 2017 Mw 7.1 Puebla-Mexico City earthquake version 1.0. geotech extrem events reconnaiss GEER-055A:1–91. https://doi.org/10.18118/G6JD46
Gehl P, Douglas J, Rossetto T, et al (2014) Investigating the Use of record-to-record variability in static capacity approaches. In: Proc 2nd int conf vulnerability risk anal manag ICVRAM 2014 6th int symp uncertain model anal ISUMA 2014 1675–1684. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413609.168
Giordano N, De Luca F, Sextos A (2020) Out-of-plane closed-form solution for the seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry schools in Nepal. Eng Struct 203:109548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109548
Gogus A, Wallace JW (2015) Seismic safety evaluation of reinforced concrete walls through FEMA P695 methodology. J Struct Eng 141:04015002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001221
González C, Niño M, Jaimes MA (2020) Event-based assessment of seismic resilience in Mexican school buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 18:6313–6336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00938-5
Gunasekera R, Ishizawa O, Aubrecht C et al (2015) Developing an adaptive global exposure model to support the generation of country disaster risk profiles. Earth-Science Rev 150:594–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.08.012
Han S, Chopra AK (2006) Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using the modal pushover analysis procedure. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1853–1873
Hosseinpour F, Abdelnaby AE (2017) Fragility curves for RC frames under multiple earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 98:222–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.04.013
IADB (2014) Learning in twenty-first century schools
Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:1489–1511. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.495
Kreslin M, Fajfar P (2012) The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both plan and elevation. Bull Earthq Eng 10:695–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9319-6
Li Q, Ellingwood BR (2005) Structural response and damage assessment by enhanced uncoupled modal response history analysis. J Earthq Eng 9:719–737
Magliulo G, Maddaloni G, Cosenza E (2012) Extension of N2 method to plan irregular buildings considering accidental eccentricity. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 43:69–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.07.032
Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114:1804–1826
Masi A (2003) Seismic vulnerability assessment of gravity load designed R/C frames. Bull Earthq Eng 1:371–395. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BEEE.0000021426.31223.60
Michel C, Lestuzzi P, Lacave C (2014) Simplified non-linear seismic displacement demand prediction for low period structures. Bull Earthq Eng 12:1563–1581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9585-1
Miranda E (1999) Approximate seismic lateral deformation demands in multistory buildings. J Struct Eng 125:417–425
Miranda E, Akkar SD (2006) Generalized interstory drift spectrum. J Struct Eng 132:840–852. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2006)132:6(840)
Mora MG, Valcárcel JA, Cardona OD et al (2015) Prioritizing interventions to reduce seismic vulnerability in school facilities in Colombia. Earthq Spectra 31:2535–2552. https://doi.org/10.1193/040412EQS151T
Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23:407–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00068-7
Nakashima M, Ogawa K, Inoue K (2002) Generic frame model for simulation of earthquake responses of steel moment frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:671–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.148
Nassirpour A, Galasso C, D’Ayala D (2018) Increasing seismic resilience of Philippines’ School. In: 16th European conference on earthquake engineering. pp 1–12
PEER (2020a) Strong ground motion databases. https://peer.berkeley.edu/peer-strong-ground-motion-databases
PEER (2020b) OpenSees - the open system for earthquake engineering simulation
Porter KA, Beck JL, Shaikhutdinov RV (2002) Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables. Earthq Spectra 18:719–743. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1516201
Prasad JSR, Singh Y, Kaynia AM, Lindholm C (2009) Socioeconomic clustering in seismic risk assessment of urban housing stock. Earthq Spectra 25:619–641. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3158547
Qu Z, Gong T, Li Q, Wang T (2019) Evaluation of the fishbone model in simulating the seismic response of multistory reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 18:315–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-019-0506-9
Reyes JC, Chopra AK (2011) Evaluation of three-dimensional modal pushover analysis for unsymmetric-plan buildings subjected to two components of ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40:1475–1494
Rincon R, Yamin L, Becerra A (2017) Seismic risk assessment of public schools and prioritization strategy for risk mitigation. In: 16th World:12
Rossetto T, Gehl P, Minas S et al (2014) Sensitivity analysis of different capacity spectrum approaches to assumptions in the modeling, capacity and demand representations. Vulnerability Uncertain Risk. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413609.167
Ruggieri S, Perrone D, Leone M et al (2020) A prioritization RVS methodology for the seismic risk assessment of RC school buildings. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 51:101807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101807
Samadian D, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Naderpour H, Eghbali M (2019) Seismic resilience evaluation based on vulnerability curves for existing and retrofitted typical RC school buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 127:105844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105844
Silva V (2019) Uncertainty and correlation in seismic vulnerability functions of building classes. Earthq Spectra 35:1515
Silva V, Akkar S, Baker J et al (2018) Current challenges and future trens in analytical fragility and vulnerability modellin. Earthq Spectra 173:669–680
The World Bank (2018) Información Técnica para el Plan de Mitigación del Riesgo Sísmico de las Edificaciones Escolares en El Salvador
The World Bank (2019) Global library for school infrastructure (GLOSI) - global program for safer schools. https://gpss.worldbank.org/en/GLOSI. Accessed 10 Oct 2021
The World Bank (2020) Evaluación del riesgo por sismo y viento huracanado y planes de reducción del riesgo para la infraestructura educativa pública de República Dominicana
UNDRR (2017) Comprehensive school safety, a global framework in support of the global alliance for disaster risk reduction and resilience in the education sector and the worldwide initiative for safe schools. Geneva, Switzerland
UNESCO (2019) Guidelines for assessing learning facilities in the context of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. In: Introduction to learning facilities assessment and to the VISUS methodology, vol 1. Paris, France
United Nations (2015) Sustainable development goals. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org
Vatteri AP, D’Ayala D (2021) Classification and seismic fragility assessment of confined masonry school buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 19:2213–2263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01061-9
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental Dynamic Analysis 514:491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141
Wald DJ, Allen TI (2007) Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:1379–1395. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060267
Wen YK, Ellingwood BR, Veneziano D, Bracci J (2003) Uncertainty modeling in earthquake engineering. MAE Cent Proj 1–113
Yamin LE, Hurtado AI, Barbat AH, Cardona OD (2014) Seismic and wind vulnerability assessment for the GAR-13 global risk assessment. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 10:452–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.05.007
Yamin LE, Hurtado A, Rincon R et al (2017) Probabilistic seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings in terms of economic losses. Eng Struct 138:308–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.02.013
Acknowledgements
This study was developed under the Global Program for Safer Schools (GPSS), funded by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) of The World Bank. The authors are thankful to the World Bank and the entire GPSS technical team, and especially to its directors Fernando Ramirez and Carina Fonseca. Gratitude is also extended to the Research Center on Materials and Civil Infrastructure (CIMOC) from Universidad de Los Andes and the EPICentre from University College London and all its members for the valuable work and feedback during the project. Finally, this paper is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Dr. Luis E. Yamin, team leader of CIMOC at Universidad de los Andes for over 30 years, who directed this research and considered it as his personal priority.
Funding
This study was developed under the Global Program for Safer Schools (GPSS), funded by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) of The World Bank.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fernández, R., Yamin, L., D’Ayala, D. et al. A simplified component-based methodology for the seismic vulnerability assessment of school buildings using nonlinear static procedures: application to RC school buildings. Bull Earthquake Eng 20, 6555–6585 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01445-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01445-5