Abstract
The seismic risk and vulnerability of urban building clusters are fundamental indicators for quantifying urban seismic resilience. The empirical vulnerability and risk models developed using various risk probability assessment theories and real seismic loss observation data from typical building clusters can provide positive references for predicting and evaluating urban earthquake resilience. However, the data used to validate and optimize the vulnerability and resilience models of building portfolios are mostly discrete points within a city. The coupling effect of multiple intensity measures is rarely considered, resulting in a relatively low evaluation accuracy of the established seismic hazard model. This study considers the comprehensive impact of macroseismic and instrumental intensity on the vulnerability of typical urban building portfolios. A multidimensional parameter seismic risk and vulnerability model considering updated damage states is proposed. Based on field inspection data from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China, an optimized hazard and vulnerability model considering all the buildings (8669 buildings) in Dujiangyan city was developed. An innovative structural vulnerability membership index was proposed to estimate the correlation between typical damage states, and vulnerability correlation parameter models were developed. An improved nonlinear vulnerability regression model considering hybrid intensity measures was proposed, and vulnerability comparison curves and matrices were generated considering the empirical damage data of buildings in Dujiangyan city. An optimized seismic damage index calculation model was developed considering five typical building portfolios in Dujiangyan city.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- RC:
-
Reinforced concrete
- DS:
-
Damage state
- MMS:
-
Multistory masonry structure
- BFM:
-
Bottom frame seismic wall masonry
- WS:
-
Workshop building
- OB:
-
Other building
- PBEE:
-
Performance-based earthquake engineering
- EDP:
-
Engineering demand parameter
- SD:
-
Seismic epicentral distance
- M:
-
Magnitude
- CSIS:
-
Chinese seismic intensity
- OHIM:
-
Optimized hybrid intensity measures
- SC:
-
Sichuan
- UDR:
-
Updated damage ratio
- OEP:
-
Optimized exceedance probability
- VMP:
-
Vulnerability membership parameter
- LDFM:
-
Logarithmic distribution function model
- EDFM:
-
Exponential distribution function model
- UGFM:
-
Updated Gaussian distribution function model
- HIM:
-
Hybrid intensity measure
- UADI:
-
Updated average damage index
- HSI:
-
Hybrid seismic intensity
References
Acito M, Buzzetti M, Chesi C, Magrinelli E, Milani G (2023) Failures and damages of historical masonry structures induced by 2012 northern and 2016–17 central Italy seismic sequences: critical issues and new perspectives towards seismic prevention. Eng Fail Anal 149:107257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107257
Bigdeli A, Emamikoupaei A, Tsavdaridis KD (2023) Probabilistic seismic demand model and optimal intensity measures for mid-rise steel modular building systems (MBS) under near-field ground motions. J Build Eng 67:105916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.105916
Biglari M, Formisano A (2020) Damage probability matrices and empirical fragility curves from damage data on masonry buildings after Sarpol-e-zahab and Bam Earthquakes of Iran. Front Built Environ. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00002
Blagojević N, Brzev S, Petrović M, Borozan J, Bulajić B, Marinković M, Hadzima-Nyarko M, Koković V, Stojadinović B (2023) Residential building stock in Serbia: classification and vulnerability for seismic risk studies. Bull Earthq Eng 21:4315–4383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01676-0
Boakye J, Murphy C, Gardoni P, Kumar R (2022) Which consequences matter in risk analysis and disaster assessment? Int J of Disaster Risk Reduction 71:102740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102740
Cardinali V, Tanganelli M, Bento R (2022) A hybrid approach for the seismic vulnerability assessment of the modern residential masonry buildings. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 79:103193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103193
Chen Y, Song J, Zhong S, Liu Z, Gao W (2022) Effect of destructive earthquake on the population-economy-space urbanization at county level-a case study on Dujiangyan county, China. Sustain Cities Soc 76:103345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103345
Chieffo N, Formisano A (2019) Geo-Hazard-Based approach for the estimation of seismic vulnerability and damage scenarios of the old city of Senerchia (Avellino, Italy). Geosciences 9(59):9020059. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9020059
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100813
Chieffo N, Mosoarca M, Formisano A, Lourenco PB (2021a) The effect of ground motion vertical component on the seismic response of historical masonry buildings: the case study of the Banloc Castle in Romania. Eng Struct 249:113346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113346
Chieffo N, Formisano A, Miguel Ferreira T (2021b) Damage scenario-based approach and retrofitting strategies for seismic risk mitigation: an application to the historical Centre of Sant’ Antimo (Italy). Eur J Environ Civ Eng 25(11):1929–1948. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2019.1596164
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106207
Chieffo N, Formisano A, Lourenço PB (2023) Seismic vulnerability procedures for historical masonry structural aggregates: analysis of the historical centre of Castelpoto (South Italy). Structures 48:852–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.01.022
China Earthquake Administration and National Bureau of Statistics (2005) Compilation of loss assessment for earthquake disasters in mainland China (2001–2005) [M]. Earthquake Press, Beijing
China Earthquake Administration and National Bureau of Statistics (1996) Compilation of loss assessment for earthquake disasters in mainland China (1990–1995) [M]. Earthquake Press, Beijing
China Earthquake Administration and National Bureau of Statistics (2001) Compilation of loss assessment for earthquake disasters in mainland China (1996–2000) [M]. Earthquake Press, Beijing
Del Gaudio C, Martino GD, Ludovico MD, 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 Earthq Eng 15:1425–1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0026-1
Del Gaudio C, Martino GD, Ludovico MD, Manfredi G, Prota A, Ricci P, Verderame GM (2019) Empirical fragility curves for masonry buildings after the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 17:6301–6330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00683-4
Del Gaudio C, Scala SA, Ricci P, Verderame GM (2021) Evolution of the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings based on the damage data from L’Aquila 2009 event. Bull Earthq Eng 19:4435–4470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01132-x
Di Ludovico M, Cattari S, Verderame G, Vecchio CD, Ottonelli D, Del Gaudio C, Prota A, Lagomarsino S (2023) Fragility curves of Italian school buildings: derivation from L’Aquila 2009 earthquake damage via observational and heuristic approaches. Bull Earthq Eng 21:397–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01535-4
Du A, Wang X, Xie Y, Dong Y (2023) Regional seismic risk and resilience assessment: methodological development, applicability, and future research needs—an earthquake engineering perspective. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 233:109104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2023.109104
El-Maissi AM, Argyroudis SA, Kassem MM, Nazri FM (2023) Integrated seismic vulnerability assessment of road network in complex built environment toward more resilient cities. Sustain Cities Soc 89:104363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104363
Eudave RR, Ferreira TM, Vicente R (2022) Parameter-based seismic vulnerability assessment of Mexican historical buildings: insights, suitability, and uncertainty treatment. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 74:102909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102909
Follador V, Carpanese P, Donà M, da Porto F (2023) Effect of retrofit interventions on seismic fragility of Italian residential masonry buildings. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 91:103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103668
Fontenele A, Campos V, Matos AM, Mesquita E (2023) A vulnerability index formulation for historic facades assessment. J Build Eng 64:105552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105552
Formisano A, Chieffo N (2023) Seismic damage scenarios induced by site effects on masonry clustered buildings: a case study in South Italy. Int J Archit Heritage 17:262–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2022.2104143
Formisano A, Chieffo N, Asteris PG, Lourenço (2023) Seismic risk scenario for the historical centre of castelpoto in Southern Italy. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 52(9):2573–2860. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3887
Gardoni P, Guevara-Lopez F, Contento A (2016) The life profitability method (LPM): a financial approach to engineering decisions. Struct Saf 63:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2016.06.006
GB/T 17742 (1999) The Chinese seismic intensity scale. (in Chinese)
GB/T 17742 (2008) The Chinese seismic intensity scale. (in Chinese)
GB/T 17742 (2020) The Chinese seismic intensity scale. (in Chinese)
Gioiella L, Morici M, Dall’Asta A (2023) Empirical predictive model for seismic damage and economic losses of Italian school building heritage. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 91:103631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103631
Gong MS, Lin SB, Sun JJ, Li SY, Dai JW, Xie LL (2015) Seismic intensity map and typical structural damage of 2010 Ms 7.1 Yushu earthquake in China. Nat Hazards 77:847–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1631-z
Hu YX (2006) Earthquake Engineering. Earthquake Press, Beijing
Iervolino I (2022) Asymptotic behavior of seismic hazard curves. Struct Saf 99:102264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2022.102264
Jiménez B, Saloustros S, Pela L (2021) Seismic vulnerability index method for hybrid timber–masonry structures. Numerical calibration and application to the city of Valparaíso Chile. J Build Eng 44:103185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103185
Kalantari M, Firuzi E, Ahmadipour M, Sorooshian S (2023) Estimating annualized earthquake loss for residential buildings in Tehran, Iran. Bull Earthq Eng 21:2259–2280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01604-8
Kassem MM, Nazri FM, Farsangi EN, Ozturk B (2023) Development of a uniform seismic vulnerability index framework for reinforced concrete building typology. J Build Eng 47:103838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103838
Kazemi F, Asgarkhani N, Jankowski R (2023) Machine learning-based seismic fragility and seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 166:107761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107761
Kohns J, Stempniewski L, Stark A (2022) Fragility functions for reinforced concrete structures based on multiscale approach for earthquake damage criteria. Buildings 12:1253. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081253
Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzin S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:415–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z
Li SQ (2024a) Improved seismic intensity measures and regional structural risk estimation models. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 176:108256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108256
Li SQ (2024b) A simplified prediction model of structural seismic vulnerability considering a multivariate fuzzy membership algorithm. J Earthquake Eng 28:707–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2023.2217945
Li SQ (2024c) Comparison of RC girder bridge and building vulnerability considering empirical seismic damage. Ain Shams Eng J 15:102287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102287
Li SQ, Formisano A (2023) Updated empirical vulnerability model considering the seismic damage of typical structures. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01814-8
Li SQ, Gardoni P (2024) Seismic loss assessment for regional building portfolios considering empirical seismic vulnerability functions. Bull Earthq Eng 22:487–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01793-w
Li SQ, Zhong J (2024) Development of a seismic vulnerability and risk model for typical bridges considering innovative intensity measures. Eng Struct 302:117431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.117431
Li SQ, Liu HB, Farsangi EN, Du K (2023) Seismic fragility estimation considering field inspection of reinforced concrete girder bridges. Struct Infrastruct Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2023.2208565
Li SQ, Li YR, Han JC, Qin PF, Du K (2024a) Seismic hazard models for typical urban masonry structures considering optimized regression algorithms. Bullet Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01879-z
Li SQ, Du K, Li YR, Han JC, Qin PF, Liu HB (2024b) Seismic vulnerability estimation of RC structures considering empirical and numerical simulation methods. Archiv Civil Mech Eng 24(2):68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-024-00874-0
Longobardi G, Formisano A (2022) Seismic vulnerability assessment and consolidation techniques of ancient masonry buildings: the case study of a Neapolitan Masseria. Eng Fail Anal 138:106306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106306
Luo H, Paal SG (2019) A locally weighted machine learning model for generalized prediction of drift capacity in seismic vulnerability assessments. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 34:935–950. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12456
Mai C, Konakli K, Sudret B (2017) Seismic fragility curves for structures using non-parametric representations. Front Struct Civ Eng 11(2):169–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-0385-y
Manfredi V, Masi A, Nicodemo G, Digrisolo A (2023) Seismic fragility curves for the Italian RC residential buildings based on non-linear dynamic analyses. Bull Earthq Eng 21:2173–2214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01605-7
Meyers-Angulo JE, Martínez-Guevas S, Gaspar-Escribano JM (2023) Classifying buildings according to seismic vulnerability using Cluster-ANN techniques: application to the city of Murcia, Spain. Bull Earthq Eng 21:3581–3622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01671-5
Mouloud H, Chaker A, Nassim H, Lebdioui S, Rodrigues H, Agius MR (2023) Post-earthquake damage classification and assessment: case study of the residential buildings after the Mw = 5 earthquake in Mila city, Northeast Algeria on August 7, 2020. Bull Earthq Eng 21:849–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01568-9
Ornthammarath T, Chua CT, Suppasri A, Foytong P (2023) Seismic damage and comparison of fragility functions of public and residential buildings damaged by the 2014 Mae Lao (Northern Thailand) earthquake. Earthq Spectra 39(1):126–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221131830
Rezaei S, Dolatshahi KM, Asjodi AH (2023) Multivariable fragility curves for unreinforced masonry walls. Bull Earthq Eng 21:3357–3398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01649-3
Rosti A, Smerzini C, Paolucci R, Penna A, Rota (2023) Validation of physics-based ground shaking scenarios for empirical fragility studies: the case of the 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake. Bulletin Earthquake Eng 21:95–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01554-1
Ruggieri S, Porco F, Uva G (2020) A practical approach for estimating the floor deformability in existing RC buildings: evaluation of the effects in the structural response and seismic fragility. Bull Earthq Eng 18:2083–2113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00774-2
Ruggieri S, Cardellicchio A, Leggieri V, Uva G (2021) Machine-learning based vulnerability analysis of existing buildings. Autom Constr 132:103936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103936
Ruggieri S, Calò M, Cardellicchio A, Uva G (2022) Analytical-mechanical based framework for seismic overall fragility analysis of existing RC buildings in town compartments. Bull Earthq Eng 20:8179–8216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01516-7
Sandoli A, Pacella G, Calderoni B, Brandonisio G, Lignola GP, Prota A (2022) Predictive hybrid fragility models for urban scale seismic assessment: a case study in Basilicata Region (Italy). Bull Earthq Eng 21:1047–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01569-8
Sandoli A, Brandonisio G, Lignola GP, Prota A, Fabbrocino G (2023) Seismic fragility matrices for large scale probabilistic structural safety assessment. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 171:107963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107963
Scala SA, Del Gaudio C, Verderame GM (2022) Influence of construction age on seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings damaged after 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 157:107199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107199
Sharma M, Singh Y, Burton HV (2023) Parametric study on the collapse probability of modern reinforced concrete frames with infills. Earthq Spectra 39(2):772–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231156462
Shrestha SR, Orchiston CHR, Elwood KJ, Johnston DM, Becker JS, Tomassi I (2022) Understanding the wider social and economic context of post-earthquake cordons: a comparative case study between Christchurch, Aotearoa (New Zealand) and L’Aquila, Italy. Earthq Spectra 38(4):2731–2753. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221091593
Sun BT, Zhang GX (2018) Study on vulnerability matrices of masonry buildings of mainland China. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 17(2):251–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-018-0439-8
Surana M, Ghosh A, Baldev D (2022) Seismic features and vulnerability of traditional building practices in the Himalayan State, Himachal Pradesh, India. J Build Eng 62:105376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105376
Tabandeh A, Gardoni P (2014) Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for RC columns retrofitted with FRP composites. Eng Struct 74:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.005
Tekeste GG, Correia AA, Costa AG (2023) Bayesian updating of seismic fragility curves through experimental tests. Bull Earthq Eng 21:1943–1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01589-4
Xi J (2022) Relationship between the organizational structure in implementing post-disaster housing reconstruction and outcome characteristics: a study on urban dujiangyan after the Wenchuan Earthquake. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 80:103221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103221
Xu H, Wang L, Li Y, Huang L, Yin L (2019) Critical Chinese government behavior for swift housing reconstruction programme—the case of Dujiangyan following Wenchuan Earthquake. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 41:101307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101307
Yang T, Yuan X, Zhong J, Yuan W (2023) Near-fault pulse seismic ductility spectra for bridge columns based on machine learning. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 164:107582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107582
Yazdanpanah O, Formisano A, Chang M, Mohebi B (2021) Fragility curves for seismic damage assessment in regular and irregular MRFs using improved wavelet-based damage index. Measurement 182:109558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2021.109558
Yoshida I, Nakamura T, Au SK (2023) Bayesian updating of model parameters using adaptive Gaussian process regression and particle filter. Struct Saf 102:102328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2023.102328
Zhang H, Cheng X, Li Y, He D, Du X (2023) Rapid seismic damage state assessment of RC frames using machine learning methods. J Build Eng 65:105797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105797
Zhong J, Zhu Y, Mangalathu S, Gao K (2023a) Probabilistic curvature-and-drift limit states predictive models of high-strength bridge columns. Eng Struct 295:116859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116859
Zhong J, Shi L, Jeon JS (2023b) Probabilistic Seismic drift-based capacity model of unbonded prestressed reinforced concrete columns: prediction model and dispersion. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 174:108211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108211
Zhong J, Zhu Y, Zheng X, Han Q (2023c) Multivariable probabilistic seismic demand models for parametric fragility prediction of isolated bridges portfolios under pulse-like GMs. Eng Struct 292:116517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116517
Acknowledgements
This paper’s structural damage sample data were derived from the earthquake field inspection database of the Institute of Engineering Mechanics of the China Earthquake Administration (IEM). I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the IEM.
Funding
The research described in this paper was financially supported by the Basic Scientific Research Business Expenses of Provincial Universities in Heilongjiang Province (2022-KYYWF-1056), the Scientific Research Fund of Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration (Grant No. 2023D39), and a project funded by Heilongjiang Postdoctoral Science Foundation (LBH-Z22294), China.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest, ethics, or otherwise. Confirm informed consent.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, SQ. Seismic risk and vulnerability models considering typical urban building portfolios. Bull Earthquake Eng 22, 2867–2902 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01880-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01880-6