Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic risk assessment of masonry-infilled RC building portfolios: impact of variability in the infill properties

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

Abstract

In the last years, many research efforts have been focusing on the development of fragility and risk models of different building classes and structural typologies for large-scale seismic risk applications. Although the role of masonry infills is well recognised, less attention has been paid to the quantification of the variability surrounding their mechanical properties and how this might affect the collapse fragility curves and loss estimates. This study investigates and quantifies, in a thorough manner, the impact of the variability in the characteristics of masonry infill on the expected annual losses (EALs) of existing infilled reinforced concrete frames of different configurations. To do so, a fully integrated portfolio, representative of buildings designed according to the Italian codes in force between 1970 and 1980, is used as case-study. Infill-related variability is accounted for by means of a macro-level distinction of five common infill types, defined in terms of stiffness and shear strength. Moreover, building-to-building variability is also included through different geometrical configurations. Multiple-stripe analyses are carried out and fragility curves are developed for buildings with different heights, in-plan layouts and structural typologies. Finally, EALs are computed and analysed in a statistical fashion in order to quantify, in a simplified manner, the uncertainty induced by the variability of the masonry infill properties, as a function of the number of storeys and masonry infill typology.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, et al (2013) PEER NGA-West2 Database, Technical Report PEER 2013/03

  • Muratovic A, Ademovic N (2015) Influence of masonry infill on reinforced concrete frame structures’ seismic response. Coupled Syst Mech 4(2):173–189. https://doi.org/10.12989/csm.2015.4.2.173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baggio C, Bernardini A, Colozza R, et al (2007) Field Manual for post-earthquake damage and safety assessment and short term countermeasures (AeDES). JRC Scientific and Thechnical Reports 1–100

  • Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31:579–599. https://doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bal IE, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basaglia A, Terrenzi M, Spacone E (2021) Fragility curves definition of existing reinforced concrete buildings designed for gravity loads. In: Papadrakakis M, Fragiadakis M (eds) The proceedings of COMPDYN 2021 8th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering streamed from Athens, Greece, 28–30 June 2021

  • Bertoldi LD, Gavarini CSHD (1993) Telai tamponati soggetti ad azioni sismiche, un modello semplificato: Confronto sperimentale e numerico. In: 6 Convegno Nazionale L’ingegneria sismica in Italia. Perugia, Italy

  • Blasi G, de Luca F, Aiello MA (2018a) Brittle failure in RC masonry infilled frames: the role of infill overstrength. Eng Struct 177:506–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasi G, de Luca F, Perrone D et al (2021) MID 1.1: database for characterization of the lateral behavior of infilled frames. J Struct Eng 147:4721007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0003117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasi G, Perrone D, Aiello MA (2018b) Fragility functions and floor spectra of RC masonry infilled frames: influence of mechanical properties of masonry infills. Bull Earthq Eng 16:6105–6130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0435-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boorea D, Atkinson G (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%Damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2830434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosi A, Marazzi F, Pinto A, Tsionis G (2011) The L’Aquila (Italy) earthquake of 6 April 2009: report and analysis from a field mission (formerly at JRC). https://doi.org/10.2788/188

  • Bournas DA, Negro P, Taucer FF (2014) Performance of industrial buildings during the Emilia earthquakes in Northern Italy and recommendations for their strengthening. Bull Earthq Eng 12:2383–2404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9466-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braga F, Gigliotti R, Laterza M (2009) R/C existing structures with smooth reinforcing bars: experimental behaviour of beam-column joints subject to cyclic lateral loads. Open Constr Build Technol J 3:52–67. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836800903010052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvi G, Magenes G, Pampanin S (2002) Relevance of beam-column joint damage and collapse in rc frame assessment. J Earthq Eng 6:75–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460209350433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvi GM, Bolognini D (2001) Seismic response of reinforced concrete frames infilled with weakly reinforced masonry panels. J Earthq Eng 5:153–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460109350390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardone D (2016a) Seismic performance assessment of soft-story RC frame buildings. J Int Environ Appl Sci 11:241–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardone D (2016b) Seismic performance assessment of Pre-70 RC frame buildings with FEMA P-58. Int J Civ Environ Eng 10:8. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1124625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardone D (2016c) Fragility curves and loss functions for RC structural components with smooth rebars. Earthq Struct 10:1181–1212. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016c.10.5.1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardone D, Perrone G (2015) Developing fragility curves and loss functions for masonry infill walls. Earthq Struct 9:257–279. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.1.257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castaldo P, Amendola G (2021) Optimal DCFP bearing properties and seismic performance assessment in nondimensional form for isolated bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 50(9):2442–2461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castaldo P, Gino D, Marano GC, Mancini G (2022) Aleatory uncertainties with global resistance safety factors for non-linear analyses of slender reinforced concrete columns. Eng Struct 255:113920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavaleri L, di Trapani F (2014) Cyclic response of masonry infilled RC frames: experimental results and simplified modeling. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 65:224–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.06.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celarec D, Dolšek M (2013) Practice-oriented probabilistic seismic performance assessment of infilled frames with consideration of shear failure of columns. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 42:1339–1360. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celarec D, Ricci P, Dolšek M (2012) The sensitivity of seismic response parameters to the uncertain modelling variables of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames. Eng Struct 35:165–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrysostomou CZ, Asteris PG (2012) On the in-plane properties and capacities of infilled frames. Eng Struct 41:385–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins MP, Mitchell D (1991) Prestressed concrete structures. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Combescure D (2006) Some contributions of physical and numerical modelling to the assessment of existing masonry infilled RC frames under extreme loading. In: Proceedings of first European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 3–8

  • Cornell CA, Krawinkler H, University of California Berkeley del (2003) Progress and Challenges in Seismic Performance Assessment

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisafulli FJ (1997) Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

  • Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ (2007) Proposed macro-model for the analysis of infilled frame structures. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 40:69–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Porto F, Donà M, Rosti A et al (2021) Comparative analysis of the fragility curves for Italian residential masonry and RC buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 19:3209–3252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01120-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca F, Woods GED, Galasso C, D’Ayala D (2018) RC infilled building performance against the evidence of the 2016 EEFIT Central Italy post-earthquake reconnaissance mission: empirical fragilities and comparison with the FAST method. Bull Earthq Eng 16:2943–2969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0289-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Risi MT, del Gaudio C, Ricci P, Verderame GM (2018) In-plane behaviour and damage assessment of masonry infills with hollow clay bricks in RC frames. Eng Struct 168:257–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Pampanin S, Prota A (2018) Repair costs of existing RC buildings damaged by the L’Aquila earthquake and comparison with FEMA P-58 predictions. Earthq Spectra 34:237–263. https://doi.org/10.1193/122916EQS257M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Ludovico M, Prota A, Moroni C et al (2017) Reconstruction process of damaged residential buildings outside historical centres after the L’Aquila earthquake: part I—“light damage” reconstruction. Bull Earthq Eng 15:667–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9877-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Trapani F, Bolis V, Basone F et al (2020) Traditional vs. sliding-joint masonry infilled frames: seismic reliability and EAL. Procedia Struct Integr 26:383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2020.06.049

    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, p 224

  • El-Dakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M, Hamid AA (2003) Three-strut model for concrete masonry-infilled steel frames. J Struct Eng 129(2):177–185. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:2(177)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-58-3 (2012b) Seismic performance assessment of buildings: volume 3—performance assessment calculation tool PACT. FEMA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Building. Federal Emergency Menagement Agency; 1997

  • Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H (2020) Mechanical properties characterization of different types of masonry infill walls. Front Struct Civ Eng 14:411–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0602-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giardini D, Wössner J, Danciu L (2014) Mapping Europe’s seismic hazard. Eos Trans AGU 95(29):261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gokkaya BU, Baker JW, Deierlein GG (2016) (2016) Quantifying the impacts of modelling uncertainties on the seismic drift demands and collapse risk of buildings with implications on seismic design checks. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 45(10):1661–1683. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hak S, Morandi P, Magenes G (2013) Local effects in the seismic design of RC structures with masonry infills. ECCOMAS thematic conference—COMPDYN 2013: 4th international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, proceedings—an IACM special interest conference 2931–2943. https://doi.org/10.7712/120113.4713.c1270

  • Hak S, Morandi P, Magenes G, Sullivan TJ (2012) Damage control for clay masonry infills in the design of RC frame structures. J Earthq Eng 16:1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.670575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haselton CB, Deierlein GG (2007) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern RC moment frame buildings. The John A Blume Earthquake Engineering Center 1–313

  • http://dati-censimentopopolazione.istat.it/Index.aspx

  • https://www.istat.it/it/censimenti-permanenti/censimenti-precedenti/popolazione-e-abitazioni/popolazione

  • https://maps.google.it

  • Ioannou I, Borg R, Novelli V, Melo J, Alexander D,Kongar I, Verrucci E, Cahill B, Rossetto T (2012) The 29th May 2012 Emilia Romagna Earthquake June 2012, UCL EPICentre Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainstone RJS (1974) Supplementary note on the stiffnesses and strengths of infilled frames building. Watford, UK

  • Masi A, Digrisolo A, Santarsiero G (2014) Concrete strength variability in Italian RC buildings: analysis of a large database of core tests. Appl Mech Mater 597:283–290. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.597.283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna F, Filippou FC, Mazzoni SFG (2000) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). https://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

  • Melo J, Varum H, Rossetto T (2015) Experimental cyclic behaviour of RC columns with plain bars and proposal for Eurocode 8 formula improvement. Eng Struct 88:22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.01.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melo J, Varum H, Rossetto T, Costa A (2012) Cyclic response of RC beam-column joints reinforced with plain bars: an experimental testing campaign, 11

  • Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (2017) D.M. 7 marzo 2017, n. 65, “Linee Guida per la classificazione del rischio sismico delle costruzioni.” 2017:1–11. https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2018/2/20/18A00716/sg

  • Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (2018) Aggiornamento delle « Norme tecniche per le costruzioni » (in Italian). Supplemento ordinario n. 8 alla Gazzetta ufficiale del 20–2–2018. Rome, Italy

  • Mohammad AF, Faggella M, Gigliotti R, Spacone E (2014) Probabilistic seismic response sensitivity of nonlinear frame bending-shear and infill model parameters for an existing infilled reinforced concrete structure. Civ-Comp Proc. https://doi.org/10.4203/ccp.106.48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morandi P, Hak S, Magenes G (2018) Performance-based interpretation of in-plane cyclic tests on RC frames with strong masonry infills. Eng Struct 156:503–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mucedero G, Carofilis W, Perrone D, Monteiro R (2022) Impact of masonry infill properties and modelling uncertainty on the seismic risk assessment of existing Italian school buildings. In: ICOSSAR 2021–2022,13th international conference on structural safety & reliability 20–24 June 2022. Tongji University, Shanghai, China

    Google Scholar 

  • Mucedero G, Perrone D, Brunesi E, Monteiro R (2020) Numerical modelling and validation of the response of masonry infilled RC frames using experimental testing results. Buildings 10:1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10100182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mucedero G, Perrone D, Monteiro R (2021) Nonlinear static characterisation of masonry—infilled RC building portfolios accounting for variability of infill properties. Bull Earthq Eng 19:2597–2641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01068-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly GJ (2021) Limitations of Sa(T1) as an intensity measure when assessing non-ductile infilled RC frame structures. Bull Earthq Eng 19:2389–2417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01071-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly GJ, Sullivan TJ (2019) Modeling techniques for the seismic assessment of the existing Italian RC frame structures. J Earthq Eng 23:1262–1296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1360224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly GJ, Sullivan TJ, Monteiro R (2018) On the seismic assessment and retrofit of infilled RC frames structures. 16th European conference on earthquake engineering

  • O’Reilly GJ, Sullivan TJ (2018) Quantification of modelling uncertainty in existing Italian RC frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 47(4):1054–1074. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pampanin S, Calvi GM (2002) Seismic behaviour of R.C. Beam-column joints designed for gravity loads. 12th European conference on earthquake engineering 726:1–10

  • Pampanin S, Magenes G, Carr A (2003) Modelling of shear hinge mechanism in poorly detailed RC beam-column joints. In: Proceedings of the fib symposium 2003: concrete structures in seismic regions, 126–127

  • Papadopoulos AN, Vamvatsikos D, Kazantzi AK (2019) Development and application of FEMA P-58 compatible story loss functions. Earthq Spectra 55:95–112. https://doi.org/10.1193/102417EQS222M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pecce M, Polese M, Verderame GM (2004) Seismic vulnerability aspects of r.c. buildings in Benevento. In: Pecce M, Manfredi G, Zollo A (eds) The many facets of seismic risk CRdC AMRA

  • Perrone D, Calvi PM, Nascimbene R et al (2019) Seismic performance of non-structural elements during the 2016 Central Italy earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 17:5655–5677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0361-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrone D, Leone M, Aiello MA (2017) Non-linear behaviour of masonry infilled RC frames: influence of masonry mechanical properties. Eng Struct 150:875–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez CM, Miranda E (2009) Building-specific loss estimation methods & tools for simplified performance-based earthquake engineering. Blume Center report, Blume Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, May

  • R.D.L 2229/39 (1939) Norme per l’esecuzione di opere in conglomerato cementizio semplice o armato. R.D.L. 16 November 1939, Italy

  • Ricci P, di Domenico M, Verderame GM (2019a) Out-of-plane seismic safety assessment of urm infills accounting for the in-plane/out-of-plane interaction in a nonlinear static framework. Eng Struct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.05.088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci P, Manfredi V, Noto F, et al (2019b) RINTC-E: towards seismic risk assessment of existing residential reinforced concrete buildings in Italy. In: 7th international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic Research School of Civil Engineering National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) Greece, pp 554–576

  • Romano F, Faggella M, Gigliotti R, Braga F (2015) Components fragility functions and comparative seismic risk analysis of an older R/C building based on FEMA P-58. XVI Convegno ANIDIS L’Aquila 2015. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3634.1523

  • Rossetto T, Elnashai A (2003) (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 

  • Rossi A, Morandi P, Magenes G (2021) A novel approach for the evaluation of the economical losses due to seismic actions on RC buildings with masonry infills. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 145:106722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi L (2019) Reconstruction cost and insurance refunding empirical evidences for precast buildings struck by the 2012 Emilia-Romagna earthquake reconstruction cost and insurance refunding empirical evidences for long-span-beam buildings struck by the 2012 Emilia-Romagna

  • Salamida G, Buratti N (2021) Fragility models for existing masonry infilled rc frames in the emilia area. In: 8th international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. pp 3098–3112

  • Sassun K, Sullivan TJ, Morandi P, Cardone D (2016) Characterising the in-plane seismic performance of infill masonry. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 49:98–115. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.49.1.98-115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam-column elements. J Struct Eng 132:244–252. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2006)132:2(244)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sezen H, Moehle JP (2004) Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng 130:1692–1703. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2004)130:11(1692)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shahnazaryan D, O’Reilly GJ, Monteiro R (2021) Story loss functions for seismic design and assessment: development of tools and application. Earthq Spectra. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211023523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva V, Crowley H, Pagani M et al (2014) Development of the OpenQuake engine, the global earthquake model’s open-source software for seismic risk assessment. Nat Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0618-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H et al (2015) Investigation of the characteristics of Portuguese regular moment-frame RC buildings and development of a vulnerability model. Bull Earthq Eng 13:1455–1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9669-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verderame GM, Cosenza E, Manfredi GPM (2002) Vulnerability analysis of a pre-seismic code R.C. building in Catania, in seismic behavior of GLD R.C. buildings. In: Cosenza E (ed) CNR– G (ed)

  • Verderame GM, Ricci P, Esposito M, Sansiviero FC (2011) Le Caratteristiche Meccaniche degli Acciai Impiegati nelle Strutture in C.A. Realizzate dal 1950 al 1980. Aicap- Reluis 1–8

  • Verderame GM, Polese M, Mariniello C, Manfredi G (2010) A simulated design procedure for the assessment of seismic capacity of existing reinforced concrete buildings. Adv Eng Softw 41(2):323335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch DP, Sullivan TJ, Calvi GM (2014) Developing direct displacement-based procedures for simplified loss assessment in performance-based earthquake engineering. J Earthq Eng 18:290–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.851046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimos D, Mergos P, Kappos A (2017) A model for non-linear dynamic analysis of sub-standard reinforced concrete members. In: 6th international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic Research School of Civil Engineering National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) Greece, pp 1656–1666

  • Zimos DK, Mergos PE, Kappos AJ (2015) Shear hysteresis model for reinforced concrete elements including the post-peak range. In: COMPDYN 2015—5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, pp 2640–2658. https://doi.org/10.7712/120115.3565.1184

Download references

Funding

The work presented in this paper has been developed within the framework of the project “ReLUIS 2019-2021” funded by the Italian Department of Civil Protection, at IUSS Pavia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University School for Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia, Palazzo del Broletto – Piazza della Vittoria, Pavia, Italy

    G. Mucedero, D. Perrone & R. Monteiro

Authors
  1. G. Mucedero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Perrone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Monteiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Monteiro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Mean EAL fitted surface

The mean expected annual losses derived across the entire building portfolio, as a function of the masonry infill typology and number of storeys, are fitted using a fourth order polynomial through the Linear Least Squares (LLS) method. The resulting EAL fitted surface and the fitted equation are presented in Fig. 15 and Table 9, which can be employed in future large-scale studies of loss assessment of building classes of this type.

Fig. 15
figure 15

a Mean EAL fitted surface, as function of number of storeys and masonry infill typology, and b EAL vs masonry infill typology and number of storeys

Full size image
Table 9 Fourth order polynomial derived for the EAL surface, as a function of masonry infill typology and number of floors
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mucedero, G., Perrone, D. & Monteiro, R. Seismic risk assessment of masonry-infilled RC building portfolios: impact of variability in the infill properties. Bull Earthquake Eng 21, 957–995 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01563-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01563-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation