Advertisement

Journal of Seismology

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 331–343 | Cite as

Seismic vulnerability: theory and application to Algerian buildings

  • Ahmed Mebarki
  • Mehdi Boukri
  • Abderrahmane Laribi
  • Mohammed Farsi
  • Mohamed Belazougui
  • Fattoum Kharchi
Original Article

Abstract

When dealing with structural damages, under the effect of natural hazards such as earthquakes, it is still a scientific challenge to predict the potential damages, before occurrence of a given hazard, as well as to evaluate the damages once the earthquake has occurred. In the present study, two distinct methods addressing these topics are developed. Thousands (∼54,000) of existing buildings damaged during the Boumerdes earthquake that occurred in Algeria (Mw = 6.8, May 21, 2003) are considered in order to study their accuracy and sensitivity. Once an earthquake has occurred, quick evaluations of the damages are required in order to distinguish which structures should be demolished or evacuated immediately from those which can be kept in service without evacuation of its inhabitants. For this purpose, visual inspections are performed by trained and qualified engineers. For the case of Algeria, an evaluation form has been developed and is still in use since the early 80s: Five categories of damages are considered (no damage or very slight, slight, moderate, major, and very severe/collapse). This paper develops a theoretical methodology that processes the observed damages caused to the structural and nonstructural components (foundations, roofs, slabs, walls, beams, columns, fillings, partition walls, stairways, balconies, etc.), in order to help the evaluator to derive the global damage evaluation. This theoretical methodology transforms the damage category into a corresponding “residual” risk of failure ranging from zero (no damage) to one (complete damage). The global failure risk, in fact its corresponding damage category, is then derived according to given combinations of probabilistic events in order to express the influence of any component on the global damage and behavior. The method is calibrated on a set of ∼54,000 buildings inspected after Boumerdes earthquake. Almost 80 % of accordance (same damage category) is obtained, when comparing the theoretical results to the observed damages. For pre-earthquake analysis, the methodology widely used around the world relies on the prior calibration of the seismic response of the structures under given expected scenarios. As the structural response is governed by the constitutive materials and structural typology as well as the seismic input and soil conditions, the damage prediction depends intimately on the accuracy of the so-called fragility curve and response spectrum established for each type of structure (RC framed structures, confined or unconfined masonry, etc.) and soil (hard rock, soft soil, etc.). In the present study, the adaptation to Algerian buildings concerns the specific soil conditions as well as the structural dynamic response. The theoretical prediction of the expected damages is helpful for the calibration of the methodology. Thousands (∼3,700) of real structures and the damages caused by the earthquake (Algeria, Boumerdes: Mw = 6.8, May 21, 2003) are considered for the a posteriori calibration and validation process. The theoretical predictions show the importance of the elastic response spectrum, the local soil conditions, and the structural typology. Although the observed and predicted categories of damage are close, it appears that the existing form used for the visual damage inspection would still require further improvements, in order to allow easy evaluation and identification of the damage level. These methods coupled to databases, and GIS tools could be helpful for the local and technical authorities during the post-earthquake evaluation process: real time information on the damage extent at urban or regional scales as well as the extent of losses and the required resources for reconstruction, evacuation, strengthening, etc.

Keywords

Algeria Structures Seismic vulnerability Damage Elastic spectrum 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Part of this collaborative work has been developed within the framework of the cooperation program Tassili Egide PHC (CMEP11MDU847). The database of the post-earthquake observed damages has been provided mainly by the Algerian official technical offices and research centers (CGS Algiers, CTC Chlef, and CNERIB Souidania). The authors are also grateful to those who have helped by their valuable comments, suggestions, and support: Pr D. Benouar (USTHB University, Algeria), Mr H. Azzouz (Technical office CTC-Center, Algeria), and Pr H. Afra (Research Center CNERIB, Algeria).

References

  1. Aït-Meziane Y, Farsi MN (2004) Seismic vulnerability estimation of a representative building in Bab El Oued district (Algiers, Algeria). European Earthquake Engineering XVIII(1):27–36Google Scholar
  2. Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Sarma SK, Smit PM (2005) Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration. Bull Earthquake Eng 3:1–53, SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anagnostopoulos S, Moretti M (2008a) Post-earthquake emergency assessment of building damage, safety, and usability—Part 1: technical issues. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 28(3):223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anagnostopoulos S, Moretti M (2008b) Post-earthquake emergency assessment of building damage, safety, and usability—Part 2: organization. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 28(3):233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Applied Technology Council (1995) Addendum to the ATC-20 Post Earthquake Building Safety Evaluation Procedure. Redwood City, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  6. Applied Technology Council (1996) ATC-40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, vol 1. Redwood City, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Applied Technology Council (2003) ATC-20i, Users Manual, Mobile Post Earthquake Evaluation Data Acquisition System, version 1.0. Redwood City, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Azzouz H, Adib A, Rebzani B (2005) Leçon d’un séisme. Rapport S.G.P, GENEST, Algérie, CTC ChlefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belazougui M, Farsi MN, Remas A (2003) A short note on building damage, Boumerdès Algeria earthquake of May 21, 2003. Newsletter N° 20, European-Mediterranean Seismological CenterGoogle Scholar
  10. Belazougui M (2008) Boumerdès Algeria earthquake of May 21, 2003: Damage analysis and behavior of beam-column reinforced concrete structures. In Proc. of the 14thWorld Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  11. Belazougui M, Remas A (1998) Mascara: Evaluation des dommages pathologie constatée et enseignement à tirer. In Proc. of Journée d’étude « Prévention et actions post-sismiques », CGS, November 1998, Algiers: 73–74Google Scholar
  12. Bertero V, Shah H (1983) El-Asnam, Algeria earthquake of October 10, 1980: A Reconnaissance and Engineering Report. Report EERI, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  13. Boukri M, Bensaïbi M (2008) Vulnerability index of Algiers masonry buildings. In Proc. of the 14thWorld Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  14. Carreno M L, Cardona OD, Barbat AH (2004) Expert system for building damage evaluation in case of earthquake. In Proc. of 13th WCEE, Paper No. 3047, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, august 1–6Google Scholar
  15. CGS (2003) Statistical study on the damaged buildings following the Boumerdes earthquake of May 21, 2003. Report, National Earthquake Engineering Research Center, CGSGoogle Scholar
  16. Charles S (2005) History of Risk Model Development. Kyoto UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. Chiroiu L (2004) Modélisation de dommages consécutifs aux séismes. Extension à d’autres risques naturels. PhD thesis, Université Paris 7 – Denis Diderot, FranceGoogle Scholar
  18. Chopra AK, Goël RK (1999) Capacity demand diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Earthq Spectra 15(4):637–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clark K (2002) The use of computer modeling in estimating and managing future catastrophe losses. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 27(2):15pGoogle Scholar
  20. Comartin C, Niewiarowski R, Freeman SA, Turner F (2000) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings: a practical overview of the ATC 40 Document. Earthq Spectra 16:1–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eguchi RT, Huyck CK, Houshmand B, Mansouri B, Shinozuka M, Yamazaki F (2000) Matsuoka M (2000) The Marmara earthquake: aview from space, reconnaissance report of the Marmara, Turkey earthquake of august 17, 1999. March MCEER-00–0001:151–169Google Scholar
  22. Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum methods based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 28:979–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farsi MN, Belazougui M (1992) The Mont Chenoua (Algeria) earthquake of October 29th, 1989: Damage assessment and distribution. In Proc. of 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 19–24 JulyGoogle Scholar
  24. Federal Emergency Management Agency: FEMA (2002) HAZUS99: Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, Technical Manual. Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Goretti A, Di Pasquale G (2002) An overview of post-earthquake damage assessment in Italy. In Proc. of EERI invitational workshop “An action plan to develop earthquake damage and loss data protocols”, September, 19–20, California, USA :16–18Google Scholar
  26. Grünthal G, Levret A (2001) European macroseismic scale 1998. Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie. Luxembourg 19:103Google Scholar
  27. Guillier B, Machane D, Oubaiche E, Chatelain JL, Ait Meziane Y, Ben Salem R, Dunand F, Guéguen P, Hadid M, Hellel M, Kibboua A, Laouami N, Mezouer N, Nour A, Remas A (2004) Résultats préliminaires sur les fréquences fondamentales et les amplifications de sols obtenus par l’étude du bruit de fond, sur la ville de Boumerdès, Algérie. Mémoire du service géologique d’Algérie 12:103–114Google Scholar
  28. Hellel M, Chatelain JL, Guillier B, Machane D, Ben Salem R, Oubaiche E, Haddoum H (2010) Heavier damages without site effects and site effects with lighter damages: Boumerdes city (Algeria) after the May 2003 earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 81(1):37–43. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.81.1.37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laouami N, Slimani A, Bouhadad Y, Chatelain JL, Nour A (2006) Evidence for fault-related directionality and localized site effects from strong motion recordings of the 2003 Boumerdes (Algeria) earthquake: consequences on damage distribution and the Algerian seismic code. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 26:993–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lestuzzi P, Badoux M (2008) Réponse Sismique des Structures. InBook : Chapter3 « Génie ParasismiqueConception et Dimensionnement des Bâtiments », Presses Polytechniques Universitaires Romandes (PPUR) : 52–89Google Scholar
  31. Mahaney JA, Terrence FP, Bryan EK, Sigmund AF (1993) The capacity spectrum method for evaluating structural response during the Loma Prieta earthquake. In Proc. of the 1993 United States National Earthquake Conference, Memphis, Tennessee, 2: 501–510Google Scholar
  32. Mébarki A, Valencia N (2004) Informal masonry structures: seismic vulnerability and GIS maps. Masonry International Journal 17:18–25Google Scholar
  33. Mébarki A (2006) Post-seismic structural damage evaluation: an integrated probabilistic proposal. In Proc. of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Structures Technology, ECT 2006, Spain, paper 247Google Scholar
  34. Meslem A, Yamazaki F, Maruyama Y, Benouar D, Laouami N, Benkaci N (2010) Site-response characteristics evaluated from strong motion records of the 2003 Boumerdes, Algeria earthquake. Earthq Spectra 26(3):803–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meslem A, Yamazaki F (2011) Accurate evaluation of building damage in the 2003 Boumerdes, Algeria earthquake from Quickbird satellite images. J Earthq Tsunami 5(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meslem A, Yamazaki F, Maruyama Y, Benouar D, Kibboua A, Mehani Y (2012) The effects of building characteristics and site conditions on the damage distribution in Boumerdes after the 2003 Algerian earthquake. Earthq Spectra 28(1):185–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nakano Y, Maeda M, Kuramoto H, Murakami M (2004) Guideline for post-earthquake damage evaluation and rehabilitation of RC buildings in Japan. In Proc. of 13thWorld Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1–6, 2004. Paper 124:12–14Google Scholar
  38. National Institute of Building Sciences website, NIBS (2012) Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment/HAZUS, Washington, DC, USA, Last visit (May 12, 2013): http://www.nibs.org/?page=hazus
  39. Ohkubo M (1995) Sistema de evaluación de danos en casos de emergencia. Centro Nacional de Prevencion de Desastres (CENAPRED), MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  40. Okasaki K, Radius Team (2000) Radius Initiative for IDNDR: How to reduce urban seismic risk. In Proc. of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  41. Park YJ, Ang AS, Wen YK (1984) Seismic damage analysis and damage limiting design of R.C. Buildings. Structural Research Series, Rep. 516, University of Illinois at Urban IIIGoogle Scholar
  42. Petrovski J, Milutinovic Z (1990) Clasificación de danos en edificaciones y evaluación de perdidas. In Proc. of “Seminario: Desastres sísmicos en grandes ciudades”, 24–27 July 1990,Bogota, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  43. Rodríguez M, Castrillón E (1995) Manual de evaluación post sísmica de la seguridad estructural deedificaciones. Series del Instituto de Ingeniería n° 569, Instituto Nacional de Ingeniería (UNAM), MexicoGoogle Scholar
  44. RPA (2004) Règles Parasismique Algériennes, RPA99 modifiées en 2003. DTR-B.C.2.48, Ministère de l’Habitat et de l’Urbanisme, AlgeriaGoogle Scholar
  45. Saito K, Spence R (2004) Rapid damage mapping using post-earthquake satellite images. In Proc. of Geosciences and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS’04. IEEE International 4:2272–2275Google Scholar
  46. Sanchez-Silva M, García L (2001) Earthquake damage assessment based on fuzzy logic and neural networks. Earthq Spectra, EERI 17(1):89–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sextos AG, Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC (2008) Computer-aided pre- and post-earthquake assessment of buildings involving database compilation, GIS visualization, and mobile data transmission. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 23(1):59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stone WC, Taylor AW (1993) Seismic Performance of Circular Bridge Columns Designed in Accordance with AASHTO/CALTRANS standards. NIST Building Science Series 170, Gaithersburg MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Westen CJ, Hofstee P (2001) The role of remote sensing and GIS in risk mapping and damage assessment for disaster in urban areas. In Proc. of 2nd Forum “Catastrophe mitigation: natural disasters, impact, mitigation, tools”, Germany: 8pGoogle Scholar
  50. Villaverde R (2004) Seismic Analysis and Design of Non Structural Elements. Book chapter 9 in : EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING - From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering, Ed. by Bozorgnia Y. and Bertero V. V., CRC Press: 1140–1204Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Mebarki
    • 1
  • Mehdi Boukri
    • 2
    • 3
  • Abderrahmane Laribi
    • 4
  • Mohammed Farsi
    • 2
  • Mohamed Belazougui
    • 2
  • Fattoum Kharchi
    • 4
  1. 1.Université Paris-Est, Laboratoire Modélisation et Simulation Multi Echelle, MSME UMR 8208Marne-la-ValléeFrance
  2. 2.National Earthquake Engineering Research Center (CGS)Rue Kaddour Rahim ProlongéeAlgiersAlgeria
  3. 3.Civil Engineering DepartmentUniversity Saad DahlabBlidaAlgeria
  4. 4.Université des Sciences et Technologie Houari Boumediène, Laboratoire Bâti dans son EnvironnementUSTHB/FGC/LBEBab EzzouarAlgeria

Personalised recommendations