Simplified seismic scenario analysis of existing masonry buildings accounting for local site effects

Abstract

This study discusses the effects of local sites and hazard amplification on the seismic vulnerability assessment of existing masonry buildings. In this context, a rapid seismic evaluation procedure was implemented on an old masonry building stock in the historical center Galata, located in İstanbul, to determine the seismic risk priority of the built heritage. Damage scenarios were generated for all soil classes, different moment magnitudes, and source-to-site distances to obtain more accurate results for the seismic vulnerability assessment of the studied building stock. Consequently, damage distributions estimated under nine different scenarios with/without site effects were compared and illustrated in maps to discuss changes in vulnerability owing to amplification effects. In this study, by re-examining the rapid seismic evaluation procedure by including geo-hazard-based assessment, the importance of site effects on the vulnerability and risk assessment of built heritage was underlined. The proposed framework integrating field data and local site effects is believed to advance the current applications for vulnerability assessment of masonry buildings and provide an improvement in the application of rapid seismic assessment procedures with more reliable results.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

masonry buildings / seismic vulnerability assessment / cultural heritage / local site effect

References

[1] Barbat A H, Pujades L G, Lantada N. Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using the capacity spectrum method: Application to Barcelona. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2007, 28(10−11): 851–865

[2] Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H, Pinho R, Sousa R. Evaluation of analytical methodologies used to derive vulnerability functions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2014, 43(2): 181–204

[3] Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S. Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2006, 4(4): 415–443

[4] Benedetti D, Petrini V. On the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings: An evaluation method. L’industria delle Costruzioni, 1984, 149: 66–74

[5] Kappos A, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G. A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2006, 4(4): 391–413

[6] CavaleriLDi Trapani FFerrottoM F. A new hybrid procedure for the definition of seismic vulnerability in Mediterranean cross-border urban areas. Natural Hazards, 2017, 86(Sup 2): 517−541

[7] Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer J J. A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2004, 2(2): 173–219

[8] D’Ayala D, Speranza E. Definition of collapse mechanisms and seismic vulnerability of historic masonry buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 2003, 19(3): 479–509

[9] FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA). HAZUS-MH: Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Earthquake Model. Washington, D.C.: FEMA, 2012

[10] Erdik M, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu M, Hancilar U, Zulfikar C, Cakti E, Kamer Y, Yenidogan C, Tuzun C, Cagnan Z, Harmandar E. Rapid earthquake hazard and loss assessment for Euro-Mediterranean Region. Acta Geophysica, 2010, 58: 855–892

[11] Molina S, Lang D H, Lindholm C D. SELENA—An open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure. Computers & Geosciences, 2010, 36(3): 257–269

[12] Dolce M, Kappos A, Masi A, Penelis G, Vona M. Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies. Engineering Structures, 2006, 28(3): 357–371

[13] GrünthalG. European Macroseismic Scale EMS-98. Luxembourg: European Center for Geodynamics and Seismology, 1998

[14] Zucconi M, Sorrentino L, Ferlito R. Principal component analysis for a seismic usability model of unreinforced masonry buildings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 96: 64–75

[15] ZucconiMFerlito RSorrentinoL. Verification of a usability model for unreinforced masonry buildings with data from the 2002 Molise, Earthquake. In: Proceedings of the International Masonry Society Conferences and the 10th International Masonry Conference. Milan: IMC, 2018

[16] Zucconi M, Ferlito R, Sorrentino L. Validation and extension of a statistical usability model for unreinforced masonry buildings with different ground motion intensity measures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 18(2): 767–795

[17] Zucconi M, Ferlito R, Sorrentino L. Simplified survey form of unreinforced masonry buildings calibrated on data from the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 16(7): 2877–2911

[18] Zucconi M, di Ludovico M, Sorrentino L. Census-based typological usability fragility curves for Italian unreinforced masonry buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 20(8): 4097–4116

[19] Giovinazzi S. Geotechnical hazard representation for seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2009, 42(3): 221–234

[20] ChieffoNFormisano A. The influence of geo-hazard effects on the physical vulnerability assessment of the built heritage: An application in a district of Naples. Buildings, 2019, 9(1): 26

[21] ChieffoNFormisano A. Geo-hazard-based approach for the estimation of seismic vulnerability and damage scenarios of the old city of Senerchia (Avellino, Italy). Geosciences, 2019, 9(2): 59

[22] Chieffo N, Formisano A. Induced seismic-site effects on the vulnerability assessment of a historical centre in the Molise Region of Italy: Analysis method and real behaviour calibration based on 2002 Earthquake. Geosciences, 2020, 10(1): 21

[23] Formisano A, Florio G, Landolfo R, Mazzolani F M. Numerical calibration of an easy method for seismic behaviour assessment on large scale of masonry building aggregates. Advances in Engineering Software, 2015, 80: 116–138

[24] GiovinazziSLagomarsino S. A macroseismic method for the vulnerability assessment of buildings. In: Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver: Venue West Conference Services Ltd., 2004

[25] GiovinazziS. The vulnerability assessment and the damage scenario in seismic risk analysis. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Braunschweig: Technical University of Braunschweig, 2005

[26] GiovinazziSLagomarsino SPampaninS. Vulnerability methods and damage scenario for seismic risk analysis as support to retrofit strategies: An European perspective. In: Proceedings of the NZSEE 2006 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Annual Conference. Napier: NZSEE, 2006

[27] TBSC-2018. Turkey Building Seismic Code. Ankara: AFAD, 2018 (in Turkish)

[28] Ambraseys N N, Jackson J A. Seismicity of the Sea of Marmara (Turkey) since 1500. Geophysical Journal International, 2000, 141(3): F1–F6

[29] Ambraseys N N. The earthquake of 1509 in the Sea of Marmara, Turkey, Revisited. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2001, 91(6): 1397–1416

[30] Erdik M, Demircioğlu M, Şeşetyan K, Durukal E, Siyahi B. Earthquake hazard in Marmara Region, Turkey. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2004, 24(8): 605–631

[31] Armijo R, Meyer B, Navarro S, King G, Barka A. Asymmetric slip partitioning in the Sea of Marmara pull-apart: A clue to propagation processes of the North Anatolian Fault. Terra Nova, 2002, 14(2): 80–86

[32] Parsons T. Recalculated probability of M > 7 earthquakes beneath the Sea of Marmara, Turkey. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2004, 109(B5): B05304

[33] U.S. Geological Survey. Earthquake Lists, Maps, and Statistics. 2020. Available at the website of U.S. Geological Survey

[34] ÖncelA D. Apartment: A new kind of housing in Galata. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2010 (in Turkish)

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 Higher Education Press