Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predictive hybrid fragility models for urban scale seismic assessment: a case study in Basilicata Region (Italy)

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

A Correction to this article was published on 03 January 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

This paper focuses on seismic fragility and damage scenario assessment of minor Italian historical centres through the development of urban fragility curves. With reference to the case study of Balvano, a small centre located in Basilicata Region of Italy, two hybrid models have been adopted. The first is a mechanic-based hybrid model developed by the authors to derive urban fragility curves specifically; the second is the macroseismic method, originally conceived to derive typological fragility curves for single building classes, expanded to derive urban fragility curve herein. Balvano was strongly struck by 1980 Irpinia-Basilicata earthquake (Ms = 6.90) and hence subjected to an intense reconstruction process during 1980s, where almost the 80% of the buildings were reconstructed with reinforced concrete structures in the place of unreinforced masonry ones. Seismic vulnerability and damage scenarios before and after 1980 have been assessed and compared with the purpose of validating the effectiveness of the urban scale fragility curves obtained through hybrid methodologies and quantifying the effect of the ‘new’ seismic hazard maps and first seismic codes and recommendations released by the Italian Government in the aftermath of 1980 for the construction of new buildings or for retrofitting the existing ones. A good matching between predicted and occurred damage scenario from the research outcomes emerged, confirming the effectiveness of the urban scale hybrid fragility curves to assess seismic vulnerability at urban scale. Moreover, the comparison of the damage scenarios pre and post-reconstruction highlighted the crucial role played by the code prescriptions adopted in that years for reducing the seismic vulnerability of the municipality and the importance of the ‘new’ seismic hazard maps introduced in 1980s. Finally, the differences between mechanical-based hybrid and macroseismic model have been discussed in the paper.

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

(Source: Google Maps)

Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  • Aguado LLP, Ferreira TM, Lourenco PB (2018) The use of a large-scaler seismic vulnerability assessment approach for masonry facade walls as an effective tool for evaluating, managing and mitigating risk in historical centers. Int J Arch Her 12(7–8):1259–1275

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Barbat AH, Carreno ML, Pujades LG, Latanda N, Cardona OD, Marulanda MC (2009) Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation methods for urban area. A review with application to a pilot area. Struct Infrastruct Eng 6:17–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basaglia A, Cianchino G, Cocco G, Rapone D, Terrenzi M, Spacone E, Brando G (2022) An automatic procedure for deriving building portfolios using the Italian “CARTIS” online database. Structures 34:2974–2986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedetti D, Petrini V (1984) On seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings: proposal of an evaluation procedure. L’industria Delle Costruzioni 18:66–78 (in Italian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardini A, Lagomarsino S, Mannella A, Martinelli A, Milano L, Parodi S (2011) Forecasting seismic damage scenarios of residential buildings from rough inventories: a case-study in the Abruzzo Region (Italy). Proc I Mech E Part OJ Risk Reliab 224:279–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D (1982) A statistical study on damaged buildings and ensuing review of the M.S.K.76 scale. In: Proc of 7th Europ. conf on earth. eng, Athens

  • Brando G, De Matteis G, Spacone E (2017) Predictive model for the seismic vulnerability assessment of small historic centres: application to the inner Abruzzi Region in Italy. Eng Struct 153:81–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brando G, Chianchino G, Rapone D, Spacone E, Biondi S (2021) A CARTIS-based method for the rapid seismic vulnerability assessment of minor Italian historical centres. Int J Dis Risk Red 63:102478

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderoni B, Cordasco EA, Sandoli A, Prota A (2016) Seismic vulnerability assessment of ‘ancient’ masonry buildings and strengthening intervention strategies. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, IBMAC 2016, pp 727–736

  • Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Velez LF, Crowley H (2006) Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. J Technol 472(43):75–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinali V, Cristofaro MT, Ferrini M, Nudo R, Paoletti B, Tanganelli M (2021) A multiscale approach for the seismic vulnerability assessment of historical centres in masonry building aggregates: cognitive approach and interdisciplinary perspectives. Int J Arch Herit. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2021.1992536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cescatti E, Salzano P, Casapulla C, Ceroni F, da Porto F, Prota A (2020) Damages to masonry churches after 2016–2017 Central Italy seismic sequence and definition of fragility curves. Bull Earth Eng 18(297):297–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chieffo N, Clementi F, Formisano A, Lenci S (2019) Comparative fragility methods for seismic assessment of masonry buildings located in Muccia (Italy). J Build Eng 25:100813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chieffo N, Formisano A, Landolfo R, Milani G (2022) A vulnerability index based-approach for the historical centre of the city of Latronico (Potenza, Southern Italy). Eng Fail Anal 136:106207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cima V, Tomei V, Grande E, Imbimbo M (2021) Fragility curves at regional basis for unreinforced masonry buildings prone to out-of-plane mechanisms: the case study of Central Italy. Structures 34:4774–4787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley H, Rodrigues D, Silva V, Despotaky V et al. (2019) The European seismic risk model 2020 (ESRM 2020). In: Proc. of 2nd int conf on Nat Haz and Infr, 23–26 June, Chania, Greece

  • Del Gaudio C, De Martino G, Di Ludovico M, Manfredi G, Prota A, Ricci P, Verderame GM (2019) Empirical fragility curves for masonry buildings after the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake. Bull Earth Eng 17:6301–6330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diana L, Manno A, Lestruzzi P, Podestà S, Luchini C (2018) Impact of displacement demand reliability for seismic vulnerability assessment at urban scale. Soil Dyn and Earth Eng 112:35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Pasquale G, Orsini G, Romeo RW (2005) New developments in seismic risk assessment in Italy. Bull of Earth Eng 3(1):101–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolce M, Di Bucci D (2015) Civil protection achievements and critical issues in seismology and earthquake engineering research. In: Ansal A (ed) Perspective on European earthquake engineering and seismology. Geothechnical, geologiacal and earthquake engineering, vol 39, pp 21–58

  • Dolce M, Manfredi G (2015) Withe book on reconstruction outside the historic centre in municipalities hit by 6 April 2009 Abruzzi earthquake. Doppiavoce (Eds). Naples, Italy (in Italian)

  • Dolce M, Prota A, Borzi B et al (2021) Seismic risk assessment of residential buildings in Italy. Bull Earth Eng 19:2999–3032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donà M, Carpanese P, Follador V, Sbrogiò L, da Porto F (2020) Mechanics-based fragility curves for Italian residential URM buildings. Bull Earth Eng 19:3099–3127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eleftheriadou AK, Karabinis AI (2011) development of damage probability matrices based on Greek earthquake damage data. Earth Eng Eng Vib 10:129–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EMS98, Grünthal G (1998). Cahiers du centre européen de géodynamique et de séismologie: volume 15—European Macroseismic Scale 1998. Luxembourg: European Center for Geodynamics and Seiseismology, Luxembur

  • Faccioli E, Cauzzi C (2006) Macroseismic intensities for seismic scenarios, estimated from instrumentally based correlations. In: Proc 1st Eur conf on earth eng and Seism, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Feanza L, Michelini A (2010) Regression analysis of MCS intensity and ground motion parameters in Italy and its application in shakeMap. Geophys J Int 180(3):1138–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez Capera AA., Albarello D, Gasperini P (2007) Aggiornamento relazioni fra l’intensità macrosismica e PGA. Progetto DPC-INGV S 1.

  • Hazus (1999) Earthquake loss estimation methodology—technical and user manuls. Federal Emergency Management Agency

  • IBC18, Italian Building Code (2018). Technical code for constructions. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructures

  • ISR 19, Italian Seismic Recommendation (2019) n. 7. Instructions for the use of Technical Code for Construction, published by D.M. 17/01/2018. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructures

  • Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earth Eng 4:391–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassem MM, Nazri FM, Farsanfi EN (2020) The seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies: a state-of-the-art review. Ain Shams Eng J 11:849–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current building. Bull Earth Eng 4(4):415–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagomarsino S, Cattari S, Ottonelli D (2021) The heuristic vulnerability model: fragility curves for masonry buildings. Bull Earth Eng 19:3129–3163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law 2 February 1974 n. 64. Measures for the constructions with particular prescriptions for the seismic zones. Italian Government 21 March 1974 (in Italian)

  • Mezzina M, Raffaele D, Uva G, Marano GC (2011) Seismic-resistant design of reinforced concrete buildings. CIttà Studi Eds.Novara, Italy (in Italian)

  • Ministerial Decree 3 March 1975 n 93. Technical rules for construction in seismic zones. Italian Government, 8 April 1975

  • Ministerial Decree 7 March 1981a n. 74. Declaration of seismic zones for Basilicata, Campania and Puglia Regions. Italian Government, 20 march 1981a (in Italian)

  • Ministerial Decree 14 May 1981b n 219. Further interventions in favor of population hit by seismic events of November 1980 and February 1981b. Organic measures for the reconstruction and development of territory hit by earthquake. Italian Government (in Italian)

  • Ministerial Decree 3 June 1981. Updating of technical rules for constructions in seismic zones. Italian Government, 30 June 1981 (in Italian)

  • Ministerial Decree 2 July 1981c n.593. Code for repairing and strengthening of buildings damaged by earthquakes in Campania, Basilicata and Puglia regions. Italian Government (in Italian).

  • Ministerial Decree 1987 n. 285. Technical rules for constructions for design, execution and testing of masonry buildings and their refurbishment. Italian Government, 5 December 1983 (in Italian)

  • Ökler A, Jeffrey Y, Learner-Lam A, Stickler MS (2009) Seismic structure of the Southern Apennines as revealed by waveform modelling of regional surface waves. Geophys J Int 178:1473–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OPCM 3274 (2003) First measures for general criteria of seismic classification of National territory and technical rules for constructions in seismic area. Italian Government, 8 May 2003 (in Italian)

  • Pejovic J, Jankovic S (2016) Seismic fragility assessment for reinforced concrete high-rise buildings in Southern Euro-Mediterranean zone. Bull Earthq Eng 14:185–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porfido S, Alessio G, Gaudiosi G, Nappi R, Michetti AM, Spiga E (2021) Photographic reportage on the rebuilding after the Irpinia-Basilicata 1980 earthquake (Southern Italy). Geosciences 11:6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porfido S, Porfido S, Alessio G, Gaudiosi G, Nappi R, Michetti AM (2022) 40 years later: new perspectives on the 23 November 1980, Ms 6.9, Irpinia-Lucania earthquake. Geosciences 12:173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recommendations 30 July 1981 n. 21745. Instructions relative to building code for repairing and strengthening of masonry buildings damaged by earthquake. Italian Government (in Italian), vol 21745

  • Royal Decree 1937 n. 2015. Technical rules for constructions, with particular prescriptions for zones hit by earthquake. Italian Government, 27 December 1937 (in Italian)

  • Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia CL (2008) Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earth Eng 28:933–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoli A, Calderoni B (2018) Assessment of the seismic vulnerability at territorial scale: a new structural-typological classification of existing buildings and definition of fragility curves. In: Proc. of the int mas conf, pp 153–168

  • Sandoli A, Musella C, Lignola GP, Calderoni B, Prota A (2020) Spandrel panels in masonry buildings: effectiveness of the diagonal strut model within the equivalent frame mode. Structures 27:879–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoli A, Lignola GP, Calderoni B, Prota A (2021) Fragility curves for Italian URM buildings based on a hybrid method. Bull Earth Eng 19(12):4979–5013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoli A, Calderoni B (2021) Methodology for an effective retrofitting strategy of existing masonry buildings: a case study near L’Aquila. Int J Mas Res Inn 6(2):141–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoli A, Calderoni B, Lignola GP, Prota A (2022) Seismic vulnerability assessment of minor Italian urban centres: development of urban fragility curves. Bull Earth Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01385-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva V (2018) Critical issues in probabilistic earthquake assessment. J Earth Eng 22(9):1683–1709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorrentino L, Cattari S, da Porto F, Magenes G, Penna A (2019) Seismic behavior of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016 central Italy earthquakes. Bull Earth Eng 17:5583–5607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomazevic M (1978) The computer program POR. Report ZRMK, Ljubljana, Slovenia

  • Zucconi M, Ferlito R, Sorrentino L (2021) Typological damage fragility curves for unreinforced masonry buildings affected by the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy earthquake. The Open Civ Eng J 15:117–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any founding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioscience and Territory, University of Molise, Via F. De Sanctis, 86100, Campobasso, Italy

    A. Sandoli

  2. Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples “Federico II”, Via Claudio 21, 80125, Naples, Italy

    G. Pacella, B. Calderoni, G. Brandonisio, G. P. Lignola & A. Prota

Authors
  1. A. Sandoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Pacella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Calderoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Brandonisio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. P. Lignola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Prota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SA: term, conceptualization, investigation, formal analyses, data curation, writing-original draft, editing. PG: investigation, formal analyses, data curation. CB: term, conceptualization, data curation. BaG: term, conceptualization, data curation. LGP: term, conceptualization, data curation, writing-original draft. PA: term, conceptualization, data curation, writing-original draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Sandoli.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.

Ethical approval

The authors declare that the paper has not been submitted elsewhere.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

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

Sandoli, A., Pacella, G., Calderoni, B. et al. Predictive hybrid fragility models for urban scale seismic assessment: a case study in Basilicata Region (Italy). Bull Earthquake Eng 21, 1047–1077 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01569-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01569-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation