Abstract
Due to the moderate seismic risks in France, the building vulnerability assessment methods developed for high seismic risk countries could not easily be used here because of their cost and the low-risk perception among the public and officials. A light vulnerability assessment method is proposed and tested in Grenoble (France), based on classes and scores provided in the GNDT method but simplified in terms of visual screening and number of structural parameters used. Compared to the RiskUE method, the damage obtained by our approach shows that 90% of buildings have residuals smaller than 0.2, i.e. one grade of the EMS98 damage scale. A large scale survey is devised and conducted among the inhabitants of Grenoble in order to collect the main structural parameters. By comparing the results from the survey to the historical urbanization of Grenoble and to expert surveys performed in two urban districts, the information useful for the light method of vulnerability assessment can be rapidly collected by non-experts reducing substantially the estimate cost. The average damage is then computed using the GNDT formula considering the probable intensities which could be observed in Grenoble (VII and VIII). The average damage reaches 0.4 in the oldest part of Grenoble mainly made of masonry buildings and 0.2 in reinforced concrete suburbs where reinforced concrete predominates. The results are a relative vulnerability assessment that provides useful initial information for the urban zones of Grenoble where the vulnerability is higher. This method can be used to classify the seismic vulnerability in wide seismic-prone regions to a fair degree of accuracy and at low cost.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AFPS. (1996) Le séisme d’Epagny (Haute-Savoie) du 15 juillet 1996. Rapport de mission. AFPS (Ed.), Paris, 128
ATC 21 (1988) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California
Benedetti D and Petrini V (1984). On seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings: proposal of an evaluation procedure. L’Industria delle Costruzioni 18: 66–78
Calvi GM, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Pinho R, Crowley H and Restrepo-Vélez LF (2006). Displacement-based methods for seismic vulnerability assessment at variable geographical scale. ISET J Earthquake Technol 43(3): 75–104
Combescure D, Guéguen P and Lebrun B (2005). Vulnérabilité sismique du bâti existant: approche d’ensemble. Cahier technique, AFPS (Ed) 25: 121
Cornou C, Bard P.-Y and Dietrich M (2003). Contribution of dense array analysis to the identification and quantification of basin-edge induced waves. Part II: application to Grenoble basin (French Alps). Bull Seism Soc Am 93(6): 2624–2648
D’Ayala D, Spence R, Oliveira C and Pomonis A (1997). Earthquake loss estimation for Europe’s historic town centres. Earthquake Spectra 13(4): 773–793
Dolce M, Masi A, Marino M and Vona M (2003). Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) including site effects. Bull Earthquake Eng 1: 115–140
EMS98 (2001) L’Echelle Macrosismique Européenne 1998. Conseil de l’Europe, Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, volume 19
Ergunay O, Gulkan P (1991) Seismic risk reduction and disaster management: national report of Turkey. In: Proceedings of workshop on seismic risk reduction and disaster management, Roma, Italy, November, 1991
Faccioli E, Pessina V, Calvi GM and Borzi B (1999). A study on damage scenarios for residential buildings in Catania City. J Seismol 3(3): 327–343
Farsi, M. (1996) Identification des structures de génie civil à partir de leurs réponses vibratoires. Vulnérabilité du bâti existant. PhD thesis, University Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, 194 pp
FEMA 178 (1997) NEHRP handbook for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency
GEMGEP (2005) Le risque sismique à Nice, apport méthodologique, résultats et perspectives opérationnelles. Final report project GEMGEP, 7 April 2005, 52 pp
GEMITIS (1999) Evaluation des dommages directs d’un séisme sur la ville de Nice: scénarios de risque. Report BRGM R40612, 171 pp
Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S (2003) Seismic risk analysis: a method for the vulnerability analysis of built-up areas. In: Proceedings of European safety and reliability conference, ESREL, Maastricht, The Netherlands, June 2003
GNDT (1993) Rischio sismico di edifici pubblici—Parte I: aspetti metodologici. Centro Servizi Quasco, Bologna
Guéguen P, Cornou C, Garambois S and Banton J (2007). On the limitation of the H/V spectral ratio using seismic noise as an exploration tool: application to the Grenoble valley (France), a small apex ratio basin. Pure Appl Geophys 164(1): 115–134
Guéguen P, Vassail T (2003) Typologie de l’agglomération grenobloise. Report VULNERALP, 38 pp
HAZUS (1997) Earthquake loss estimation methodology. Hazus technical manuals. National Institute of Building Science, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington
Jongmans D, Plumier A (2000) Etude Pilote du risque sismique sur une partie de la ville de Liège, rapport interne, Université de Liège, Faculté des sciences appliquées (in French)
Lebrun B, Hatzfeld D and Bard P-Y (2001). A site effect study in urban area: experimental results in Grenoble (France). PAGEOPH 158: 2543–2557
Martin C (1999) Méthodologie d’évaluation du risque sismique aux échelles locale et régionale applicable aux maisons individuelles. Programmes GEMITIS Pointe-à-Pitre et Fort-de-France, contrats de plans Etat-Régions Martinique et Guadeloupe. Report. GTR/BRGM/0188–98
MEDD (1982) Le risque sismique. Délégation aux risques majeurs, 1982
Milutinovic ZV, Trendafiloski GS (2003) WP4-Vulnerability of current buildings, RISK-UE project, 110 pp
Oliveira CS (2003). Seismic vulnerability of historical constructions: a contribution. Bull Earthquake Eng 1(1): 37–82
Onur T, Ventura CE and Liam Finn WD (2005). Regional seismic risk in British Columbia – damage and loss distribution in Victoria and Vancouver. Can J Civ Eng 32: 361–371
Otani S (2000). Seismic vulnerability assessment methods for buildings in Japan. Earthquake Eng & Eng Seismol 2(2): 47–56
Parent J-F (1982) Grenoble, deux siècles d’urbanisme. Presse Universitaire de Grenoble, 187 pp
Pierre J-P and Montagne M (2004). The 20 April 2002, Mw 5.0 Au Sable Forks, New York, earthquake~: a supplementary source of knowledge on earthquake damage to lifelines and buildings in Eastern North America. Seismol Res Lett 75(5): 626–635
RiskUE (2003) An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different european towns, Projet Européen, EVK4-CT-2000–00014
Roca A, Goula X, Susagna T, Chávez J, González M and Reinoso E (2006). A simplified method for vulerability assessment of dwelling buildings and estimation of the damage scenarios in Catalonia (Spain). Bull Earthquake Eng 4(2): 141–158
Saito K, Spence R, Going C and Markus M (2004). Using high-resolution satellite images for post-earthquakes building damage assessment: a study following the 26 January 2001 Gujarat earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 20(1): 145–169
Schweier C, Markus A and Steinle E (2004). Simulation of earthquake caused building damages for the development of fast reconnaissance techniques. Nat. Hazard Earth Syst. Sci. 4: 285–293
Seismocare (1998) Seismocare Computed Aided Reduction of Seismic Risk with application to existing cities, town planning and construction - Directions to fill in the vulnerability form GNDT levels 1 and 2. European project Environment and Climate, 1994–1998, ENV4-CT97–0588
Spence R, Bommer J, Del Re D, Bird J, Aydinoglu N and Tabuchi S (2003). Comparing loss estimation with observed damage: a study of the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turquey. Bull Earthquake Eng 1(1): 83–113
Spence R, Lebrun B (ed) (2006) Earthquake scenarios for European cities – the risk-UE project. Bull Earthquake Eng 4(4): special issue.
Steimen S, Faeh D, Giardini D, Bertogg M and Tschudi S (2004). Reliability of building inventories in seismic prone regions. Bull. of Earthquake Engi. 2(3): 361–388
Thouvenot F, Fréchet J, Jenatton J and Gamond JF (2003). The Belledonne border fault: indetification of an active seimic strike-slip fault in the western Alps. Geophys J Int 155: 174–192
Ventura CE, Liam Finn WD, Onur T, Blanquera A and Rezai M (2005). Regional seismic risk in British Columbia – classification of buildings and development of damage probability functions. Can J Civ Eng 32: 372–387
VULNERALP (2004) Projet d’évaluation de la vulnérabilité sismique à Grenoble. http://www-lgit.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/~pgueg/VULNERALP)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guéguen, P., Michel, C. & LeCorre, L. A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-low seismic hazard regions: application to Grenoble (France). Bull Earthquake Eng 5, 467–490 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9036-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9036-3