Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment: Masonry Structures

  • Dina D’AyalaEmail author
  • Viviana Novelli
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_250


The assessment of the vulnerability of the building stock of an urban center is an essential prerequisite to its seismic risk assessment. The other two ingredients are the expected hazard over given return periods and the distribution and values of the assets constituting the building stock. All three elements of the seismic risk assessment are affected by uncertainties of aleatory nature, related to the spatial variability of the parameters involved in the assessment, and epistemic nature, related to the limited capacity of the models used to capture all aspects of the seismic behavior of buildings and to describe them in simple terms, suitable for this type of analysis. Hence it should always be kept in mind that the computation of a risk level is highly probabilistic and that to accurately represent the risk, the expected values should always be accompanied by a measure of the associated dispersion. A very preliminary estimate of the seismic capacity of the local...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Askan A, Yucemen MS (2010) Probabilistic methods for the estimation of potential seismic damage: application to reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. Struct Saf 32(4):262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baggio C, Bernardini A, Colozza R, Corazza L, Della Bella M, Di Pasquale G, Dolce M, Goretti A, Martinelli A (2009) Manuale per la compilazione della scheda di 1° livello di rilevamento danno, pronto intervento e agibilità per edifici ordinari nell’emergenza post-sismica (AeDES). Editrice Italiani nel Mondo srl, RomaGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbat AH, Yépez Moya F, Canas JA (1996) Damage scenarios simulation for seismic risk assessment in urban zones. Earthq Spectra 12(3):371–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benedetti D, Benzoni G, Parisi MA (1988) Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation for old urban nuclei. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 16:183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernardini A, Gori R, Modena C (1990) An application of coupled analytical models and experiential knowledge for seismic vulnerability analyses of masonry buildings. In: Koridze A (ed) Engineering aspects of earthquake phenomena, vol 3. Omega Scientific, Oxon, pp 161–180Google Scholar
  6. Borzi B, Crowley H, Pinho R (2008) Simplified pushover-based earthquake loss assessment (SP-BELA) method for masonry buildings. Int J Architect Herit 2(4):353–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D (1982) A statistical study on damaged buildings and ensuing review of the MSK −76 SCALE. In: Proceedings of the 7th European conference on earthquake engineering, AthensGoogle Scholar
  8. CEN – EN 1998-3 (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 3: strengthening and repair of buildings. Comitee’ Europeen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Corsanego A, Petrini V (1990) Seismic vulnerability of buildings – work in progress. In: Proceedings of the workshop II on seismic risk vulnerability and risk assessment, Trieste, pp 577–598Google Scholar
  10. D’Ayala D (2005) Force and displacement based vulnerability assessment for traditional buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 3:235–265, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  11. D’Ayala D, Ansal A (2012) Nonlinear push over assessment of heritage buildings in Istanbul to define seismic risk. Bull Earthq Eng 10(1):285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Ayala D, Paganoni S (2011) Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic city centre after 6th April 2009. Bull Earthq Eng 9(1):81–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. D’Ayala D, Speranza E (2003) Definition of collapse mechanisms and seismic vulnerability of historic masonry buildings. Earthq Spectra 19:479–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Pasquale G, Orsini G, Romeo RW (2005) New developments in seismic risk assessment in Italy. Bull Earthq Eng 3(1):101–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolsek M, Fajfar P (2004) Inelastic spectra for infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33:1395–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elenas A (2000) Correlation between seismic acceleration parameters and overall structural damage indices of buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 20(1–4):93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erberik MA (2008) Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in-plane failure modes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:387–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(9):979–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fajfar P, Gašperšič P (1996) The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of R.C. buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25(1):31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2001) HAZUS99 technical manual. Service Release 2. FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S (2004) A macroseismic method for the vulnerability assessment of buildings. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Paper No. 896Google Scholar
  22. Grünthal G (ed) (1998) Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie: volume 15 – European macroseismic scale 1998. European Center for Geodynamics and Seismology, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaiswal K, Wald D, D’Ayala D (2011) Developing empirical collapse fragility functions for global building types. Earthq Spectra 27:775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Pitilakis K (1998) Development of seismic risk scenarios based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment. Nat Hazards 17(2):177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Penelis GG (2008) Development of a seismic damage and loss scenario for contemporary and historical buildings in Thessaloniki, Greece. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(10–11):836–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):415–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lang K, Bachmann H (2004) On the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings: a case study of the city of Basel. Earthq Spectra 20(1):43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miranda E (2001) Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of SDOF systems. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 127(9):1005–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Novelli V, D’Ayala DF (2014) The PERPETUATE procedure for the seismic vulnerability assessment at territorial scale. Application to the Casbah of Algiers. Bull Earthq Eng 12:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spence R, Coburn AW, Pomonis A (1992) Correlation of ground motion with building damage: the definition of a new damage-based seismic intensity scale. In: Proceedings of the tenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Madrid, vol 1, pp 551–556Google Scholar
  31. Tomaževič M (2007) Damage as a measure for earthquake-resistant design of masonry structures: Slovenian experience. Can J Civil Eng 34(11):1403–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. UNDP/UNIDO Project RER/79/015 (1985) Post-earthquake damage evaluation and strength assessment of buildings under seismic condition, vol 4. UNDP, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  33. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C (2005) Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity of multidegree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of single degree of freedom approximation. J Struct Eng 131(4):589–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whitman RV, Reed JW, Hong ST (1973) Earthquake damage probability matrices. In: Proceedings of the 5th world conference on earthquake engineering, Rome, Italy, pp. 2531–2540Google Scholar
  35. Wu Y-M, Teng T-l et al (2003) Relationship between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and intensity in Taiwan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(1):386–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zobin VM, Cruz-Bravo AA, Ventura-Ramırez F (2010) Microzonation of seismic risk in a low-rise Latin American city, based on the macroseismic evaluation of the vulnerability of residential buildings: Colima city, Mexico. Nat Hazard Earthq Syst Sci 10:1347–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK