Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry and RC Building Stocks: A Simplified Methodology
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Description of the Proposed Methodology
2.1. Collection of Information for Structural Assessment
- Masonry buildings: (i) the identification of the masonry typologies and corresponding bond pattern and (ii) the evaluation of the quality of the connections between masonry walls and between horizontal and vertical structural elements. These operations can be performed in situ by removing a portion of plaster, if present, on at least two masonry walls to be selected as representative of the construction, according to the knowledge procedure previously carried out.
- Reinforced concrete buildings: (i) the identification of the type of reinforcement (i.e., number, diameter, and position of rebars, as well as concrete cover thickness) in some representative columns of the building, at least one column per floor and (ii) an estimate of the concrete quality. These investigations can be done using pacometer tests, visual inspections, or sclerometer tests on the columns considered to be representative of the resisting elements on each floor. The column strength for horizontal actions is mostly related to its flexural behavior and thus to the amount of steel rebars rather than to the concrete strength.
2.2. Evaluation of Structural Capacity (PGAc)
2.2.1. Masonry Buildings
- αPM is the modal participation factor, equal to 1 for buildings having one floor above ground only; otherwise, it is equal to 0.8;
- αAD is the spectral amplification factor, considered to be equal to 2.5;
- αDT is a parameter accounting for the dissipative behavior of the structure; for masonry buildings, it is assigned a value of 0.8 or 1 if the dissipative contribution of non-structural elements is relevant or not, respectively;
- αDUC is a ductility factor accounting for the ductile resources of the structure, here assumed to be equal to 2 (see the following considerations).
2.2.2. Reinforced Concrete (RC) Buildings
- αDT is assumed to be equal to 1 if the resistant contribution of the non-structural elements is significant compared to that of the main resisting system and considered in the analysis; otherwise, it is assumed to be equal to 0.8;
- αDUC is a ductility factor which can assume values between 2 and 3; in more detail, a lower value is associated with fragile mechanisms (shear failure), while a higher value is used for ductile mechanisms (flexural failure).
2.3. Safety Evaluation and Classification
3. Application and Validation of the Methodology
4. Conclusions
- The proposed method can be considered as a simplified analytical method—analytical because the basic shear resistance of the building is calculated analytically starting with a few geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the construction and simplified because as few parameters as possible, easily available after a short survey, are used. PGA is used as an intensity measure, and spectral acceleration is directly obtained from the PGA through a spectral amplification factor set equal to 2.5. The method differs from other mechanical models for masonry buildings (see, e.g., [50]) and RC buildings (see, e.g., [28]), which are based on simplified nonlinear analyses of the most representative parts of the structure. The most relevant advantage is that the proposed approach requires a smaller number of mechanical parameters and a priori assumptions on the mechanical behavior of the structure; this is very important because very limited surveys are possible. One disadvantage is that only the life safety limit state is considered because other damage states require displacements to be estimated and thus, nonlinear analyses.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. GNDT form Parameters for Masonry Buildings
- N° 1—Typology and organization of the resisting system
- N° 2—Quality of the resisting system
- The type and homogeneity of the materials, i.e., the type and quality of the blocks, the type and state of conservation of the mortar;
- The bond pattern, with reference to the dimensions of the blocks and their regular or irregular disposition;
- The presence of a transversal connection between wall leaves.
- N° 3—Conventional resistance
- N° 4—Building location and foundations
- The consistency and slope of the soil;
- The presence of foundations;
- The presence of foundations at different heights;
- The unbalanced pressures of the embankments.
- N° 5—Horizontal structural elements
- N° 6—Plan configuration
- N° 7—Configuration in elevation
- N° 8—Maximum distance between masonry walls
- N° 9—Roof typology
- The thrusting action of the roof on the perimetral walls;
- The connection of the roof structural elements to the masonry walls (e.g., the presence of ring beams or steel ties, etc.);
- The roof weight;
- The difference in terms of stiffness and resistance with respect to the masonry;
- The support length of the roof.
- N° 10—Non-structural elements
- N° 11—State of damage
Appendix B. GNDT form Parameters for RC Buildings
- N° 1—Typology and organization of the resisting system
- N° 2—Quality of the resisting system
- The type and quality of the materials;
- The adopted design criteria;
- The adopted construction practices.
- N° 3—Conventional resistance
- N° 4—Building location and foundations
- The consistency and slope of the soil;
- The presence of foundations;
- The foundation typology.
- N° 5—Horizontal structural elements
- N° 6—Plan configuration
- N° 7—Configuration in elevation
- N° 8—Connections and critical elements
- N° 9—Low-ductility elements
- N° 10—Non-structural elements
- N° 11—State of damage
References and Notes
- Tesfamariam, S.; Liu, Z. Earthquake Induced Damage Classification for Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Struct. Saf. 2010, 32, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peek, L.; Ryder, S.S.; Moresco, J.; Tucker, B. Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies in Earthquake-Prone Cities. In Multi-Hazard Approaches to Civil Infrastructure Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 507–532. [Google Scholar]
- Freddi, F.; Galasso, C.; Cremen, G.; Dall’Asta, A.; Di Sarno, L.; Giaralis, A.; Gutiérrez-Urzúa, F.; Málaga-Chuquitaype, C.; Mitoulis, S.A.; Petrone, C.; et al. Innovations in Earthquake Risk Reduction for Resilience: Recent Advances and Challenges. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 60, 102267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Ayala, D.F.; Paganoni, S. Assessment and Analysis of Damage in L’Aquila Historic City Centre after 6th April 2009. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2011, 9, 81–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penna, A.; Morandi, P.; Rota, M.; Manzini, C.F.; da Porto, F.; Magenes, G. Performance of Masonry Buildings during the Emilia 2012 Earthquake. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 12, 2255–2273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozturk, M.; Arslan, M.H.; Korkmaz, H.H. Effect on RC Buildings of 6 February 2023 Turkey Earthquake Doublets and New Doctrines for Seismic Design. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2023, 153, 107521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Ludovico, M.; Digrisolo, A.; Graziotti, F.; Moroni, C.; Belleri, A.; Caprili, S.; Carocci, C.; Dall, A.; De Martino, G.; De Santis, S.; et al. The Contribution of ReLUIS to the Usability Assessment of School Buildings Following the 2016 Central Italy Earthquake. Boll. Di Geofis. Teor. E Appl. 2017, 58, 353–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Ludovico, M.; Del Gaudio, C.; Del Zoppo, M.; Gaetani d, M.; Baltzopoulos, G.; Apuzzo, R.; Giulivo, M.; Manfredi, V.; Sisti, R.; Grella, A.; et al. Italian Joint Reconnaissance Mission—Türkiye; Italian Department of Civil Protection: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Cosenza, E.; Del Vecchio, C.; Di Ludovico, M.; Dolce, M.; Moroni, C.; Prota, A.; Renzi, E. The Italian Guidelines for Seismic Risk Classification of Constructions: Technical Principles and Validation. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 5905–5935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calvi, G.M.; Pinho, R.; Magenes, G.; Bommer, J.J.; Restrepo-Velez, L.F.; Crowley, H. Development of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies Over the Past 30 Years. ISET J. Earthq. Technol. 2006, 43, 75–104. [Google Scholar]
- Rota, M.; Penna, A.; Strobbia, C.L. Processing Italian Damage Data to Derive Typological Fragility Curves. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2008, 28, 933–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ioannou, I.; Bertelli, S.; Verrucci, E.; Arcidiacono, V.; Rossetto, T. Empirical Fragility Assessment of Residential Buildings Using Data from the Emilia 2012 Sequence of Earthquakes. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 19, 1765–1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Martino, G.; Di Ludovico, M.; Prota, A.; Moroni, C.; Manfredi, G.; Dolce, M. Estimation of Repair Costs for RC and Masonry Residential Buildings Based on Damage Data Collected by Post-Earthquake Visual Inspection. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 15, 1681–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Autiero, F.; De Martino, G.; Di Ludovico, M.; Prota, A. Structural Assessment of Ancient Masonry Structures: An Experimental Investigation on Rubble Stone Masonry. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2023, 17, 815–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rota, M.; Penna, A.; Magenes, G. A Framework for the Seismic Assessment of Existing Masonry Buildings Accounting for Different Sources of Uncertainty. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2014, 43, 1045–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simões, A.; Milošević, J.; Meireles, H.; Bento, R.; Cattari, S.; Lagomarsino, S. Fragility Curves for Old Masonry Building Types in Lisbon. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 13, 3083–3105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milosevic, J.; Cattari, S.; Bento, R. Definition of Fragility Curves through Nonlinear Static Analyses: Procedure and Application to a Mixed Masonry-RC Building Stock. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 18, 513–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battaglia, L.; Ferreira, T.M.; Lourenço, P.B. Seismic Fragility Assessment of Masonry Building Aggregates: A Case Study in the Old City Centre of Seixal, Portugal. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2021, 50, 1358–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferretti, F.; Simoni, E.; Buratti, N.; Mazzotti, C. Typological Fragility Analysis of Masonry Buildings in Emilia Romagna Region (Italy). Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 21, 3321–3356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salamida, G.; Buratti, N. Fragility Models for RC Frames with Masonry Infills and Analysis of the Efficiency of Different IMs. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2023, 44, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shabani, A.; Kioumarsi, M.; Zucconi, M. State of the Art of Simplified Analytical Methods for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. Eng. Struct. 2021, 239, 112280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, V.; Akkar, S.; Baker, J.; Bazzurro, P.; Castro, J.M.; Crowley, H.; Dolsek, M.; Galasso, C.; Lagomarsino, S.; Monteiro, R.; et al. Current Challenges and Future Trends in Analytical Fragility and Vulnerability Modeling. Earthq. Spectra 2019, 35, 1927–1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, T.M.; Mendes, N.; Silva, R. Multiscale Seismic Vulnerability Assessment and Retrofit of Existing Masonry Buildings. Buildings 2019, 9, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazumder, R.K.; Rana, S.; Salman, A.M. First Level Seismic Risk Assessment of Old Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Using Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 103162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achs, G.; Adam, C. Rapid Seismic Evaluation of Historic Brick-Masonry Buildings in Vienna (Austria) Based on Visual Screening. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 10, 1833–1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FEMA P-155; Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation—Third Edition. Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
- Aggarwal, Y.; Saha, S.K. An Improved Rapid Visual Screening Method for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Indian Himalayan Region. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 21, 319–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Vecchio, C.; Gentile, R.; Di Ludovico, M.; Uva, G.; Pampanin, S. Implementation and Validation of the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) for the Seismic Performance Assessment of a Damaged Case Study Building. J. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 24, 1771–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti. Censimento di Vulnerabilità Degli Edifici Pubblici, Strategici e Speciali Nelle Regioni Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Molise, Puglia e Sicilia-Schede Di 1° e 2° Livello Di Vulnerabilità e Di Rilevamento Del Danno Per Edifici in c.a. e Muratura; Dipartimento della Protezione Civile: Roma, Italy, 1999. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- Luco, N.; Cornell, C.A. Structure-Specific Scalar Intensity Measures for Near-Source and Ordinary Earthquake Ground Motions. Earthq. Spectra 2007, 23, 357–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eads, L.; Miranda, E.; Lignos, D.G. Average Spectral Acceleration as an Intensity Measure for Collapse Risk Assessment. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2015, 44, 2057–2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yakut, A.; Sucuoğlu, H.; Akkar, S. Seismic Risk Prioritization of Residential Buildings in Istanbul. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2012, 41, 1533–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CEN EN 1998-1; Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1998.
- Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti Aggiornamento Delle «Norme Tecniche per Le Costruzioni» (in Italian). Gazz. Uff. della Repubb. Ital. 2018, 42, 1–372.
- Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti Circolare 21 Gennaio 2019—Istruzioni per l’applicazione Dell’«Aggiornamento Delle “Norme Tecniche per Le Costruzioni”». Gazz. Uff. della Repubb. Ital. 2019, 1–337. Available online: https://sttan.it/norme/NTC2018/NTC2018_Circ_21_01_2019_n7-CS_LL_PP.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2024). (In Italian).
- Ferretti, F.; Ferracuti, B.; Mazzotti, C.; Savoia, M. Destructive and Minor Destructive Tests on Masonry Buildings: Experimental Results and Comparison between Shear Failure Criteria. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 199, 12–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FEMA 365; Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
- Turnsek, V.; Cacovic, F. Some Experimental Results on the Strength of Brick Masonry Walls. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke-on-Trent, UK, 12–15 April 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Mann, W.; Muller, H. Failure of Shear-Stressed Masonry—An Enlarged Theory, Tests and Application to Shear Walls. Proc. Br. Ceram. Soc. 1982, 30, 223–235. [Google Scholar]
- Parisi, F.; Augenti, N. Earthquake Damages to Cultural Heritage Constructions and Simplified Assessment of Artworks. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 34, 735–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Indirli, M.; Kouris, S.L.A.; Formisano, A.; Borg, R.P.; Mazzolani, F.M. Seismic Damage Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Structures After The Abruzzo 2009 Earthquake: The Case Study of the Historical Centers of L’Aquila and Castelvecchio Subequo. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2013, 7, 536–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dolce, M. Schematizzazione e Modellazione Degli Edifici in Muratura Soggetti Ad Azioni Sismiche. L’industria Delle Costr. 1991, 25, 44–57. [Google Scholar]
- Dolce, M.; Moroni, C. La Valutazione Della Vulnerabilità e Del Rischio Sismico Degli Edifici Pubblici Mediante Le Procedure VC e VM; Dipartimento della Protezione Civile: Rome, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Dolce, M.; Masi, A.; Moroni, C.; Liberatore, D.; Laterza, M.; Ponzo, F.; Cacosso, A.; D’alessandro, G.; Faggella, M.; Gigliotti, R.; et al. Valutazione Della Vulnerabilità Sismica Di Edifici Scolastici Della Provincia Di Potenza. In Proceedings of the XI Congresso Nazionale “L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia”, Genova, Italy, 25–29 January 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Regione Toscana, Manuale per La Compilazione Della Scheda GNDT/CNR Di II Livello—Versione Modificata Della Regione Toscana, Direzione Generale Delle Politiche Territoriali Ad Ambientali, Settore: Servizio Sismico Regionale 2003. (In Italian)
- Lagomarsino, S.; Penna, A.; Galasco, A.; Cattari, S. TREMURI Program: An Equivalent Frame Model for the Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Masonry Buildings. Eng. Struct. 2013, 56, 1787–1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fajfar, P. A Nonlinear Analysis Method for Performance-Based Seismic Design. Earthq. Spectra 2000, 16, 573–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EN1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014; Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
- Regione Marche Manuale per La Compilazione Della Scheda GNDT/CNR Di II Livello per Edifici in Calcestruzzo Armato 2004. (In Italian)
- Lagomarsino, S.; Cattari, S. Fragility Functions of Masonry Buildings; Pitilakis, K., Crowley, H., Kaynia, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 111–156. [Google Scholar]
N° | Parameter | Vulnerability Classes and Scores (pk) | Weight (wk) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | |||
1 | Typology and organization of the resisting system | 0 | 5 | 20 | 45 | 1.50 |
2 | Quality of the resisting system | 0 | 5 | 25 | 45 | 0.25 |
4 | Building location and foundations | 0 | 5 | 25 | 45 | 0.75 |
5 | Horizontal structural elements | 0 | 5 | 15 | 45 | Variable |
6 | Plan configuration | 0 | 5 | 25 | 45 | 0.50 |
7 | Configuration in elevation | 0 | 5 | 25 | 45 | Variable |
8 | Maximum distance between masonry walls | 0 | 5 | 25 | 45 | 0.25 |
9 | Roof typology | 0 | 15 | 25 | 45 | Variable |
10 | Non-structural elements | 0 | 0 | 25 | 45 | 0.25 |
11 | State of damage of the building | 0 | 5 | 25 | 45 | 1.00 |
Parameter | Value |
---|---|
Density (kN/m3) | 18.0 |
Elastic modulus (MPa) | 4550.0 |
Shear modulus (MPa) | 1137.5 |
Compressive strength (MPa) | 8.0 |
Shear strength—TC criterion (MPa) | 0.09 |
N° | Parameter | Vulnerability Classes and Scores (pk) | Weight (wk) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | |||
1 | Typology and organization of the resisting system | 0 | −1.00 | −2.00 | - | 1.00 |
2 | Quality of the resisting system | 0 | −0.25 | −0.50 | - | 1.00 |
4 | Building location and foundations | 0 | −0.25 | −0.50 | - | 1.00 |
5 | Horizontal structural elements | 0 | −0.25 | −0.50 | - | 1.00 |
6 | Plan configuration | 0 | −0.25 | −0.50 | - | 1.00 |
7 | Configuration in elevation | 0 | −0.50 | −1.50 | - | 1.00 |
8 | Connections and critical elements | 0 | −0.25 | −0.50 | - | 1.00 |
9 | Low-ductility elements | 0 | −0.25 | −0.50 | - | 1.00 |
10 | Non-structural elements | 0 | −0.25 | −0.50 | - | 1.00 |
11 | State of damage of the building | 0 | −0.50 | −1.00 | −2.45 | 1.00 |
PGAc/PGAd | Vulnerability Class |
---|---|
>100% | I |
75–100% | II |
50–75% | III |
25–50% | IV |
0–25% | V |
N° of Floors | N° of Masonry Buildings | N° of RC Buildings |
---|---|---|
1 | 6 | 23 |
2 | 25 | 18 |
3 | 6 | 38 |
4 | 11 | 13 |
Total | 48 | 92 |
Construction Age | N° of Masonry Buildings | N° of RC Buildings |
---|---|---|
<1919 | 20 | - |
1919–1945 | 11 | - |
1946–1960 | 7 | 20 |
1961–1970 | 3 | 38 |
1971–1980 | 2 | 13 |
1981–1990 | - | 7 |
1991–2000 | - | 11 |
2001–2005 | - | 3 |
Non-detectable | 5 | - |
Total | 48 | 92 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ferretti, F.; Mazzotti, C.; Savoia, M. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry and RC Building Stocks: A Simplified Methodology. Buildings 2024, 14, 2890. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092890
Ferretti F, Mazzotti C, Savoia M. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry and RC Building Stocks: A Simplified Methodology. Buildings. 2024; 14(9):2890. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092890
Chicago/Turabian StyleFerretti, Francesca, Claudio Mazzotti, and Marco Savoia. 2024. "Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry and RC Building Stocks: A Simplified Methodology" Buildings 14, no. 9: 2890. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092890