A Building Classification System for Multi-hazard Risk Assessment

Abstract

A uniform and comprehensive classification system, often referred to as taxonomy, is fundamental for the characterization of building portfolios for natural hazard risk assessment. A building taxonomy characterizes assets according to attributes that can influence the likelihood of damage due to the effects of natural hazards. Within the scope of the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) initiative, a building taxonomy (GEM Building Taxonomy V2.0) was developed with the goal of classifying buildings according to their seismic vulnerability. This taxonomy contained 13 building attributes, including the main material of construction, lateral load-resisting system, date of construction and number of stories. Since its release in 2012, the taxonomy has been used by hundreds of experts working on exposure and risk modeling efforts. These applications allowed the identification of several limitations, which led to the improvement and expansion of this taxonomy into a new classification system compatible with multi-hazard risk assessment. This expanded taxonomy (named GED4ALL) includes more attributes and several details relevant for buildings exposed to natural hazards beyond earthquakes. GED4ALL has been applied in several international initiatives, enabling the identification of the most common building classes in the world, and facilitating compatibility between exposure models and databases of vulnerability and damage databases.

Keywords

Disaster risk / Exposure / Multi-hazard / Taxonomy

References

[1] Adhikari, R., D. D’ayala, C. Ferreira, and F. Ramirez. 2018. Structural classification system for load bearing masonry school buildings. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 18−21 June 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece.

[2] Allen, L., A.W. Charleson, S. Brzev, and C. Scawthorn. 2013. Glossary for the GEM building taxonomy – GEM Technical Report 2013-03 V1.0.0. Pavia, Italy: GEM Foundation.

[3] ATC (Applied Technology Council). 1985. Earthquake damage evaluation data for California, ATC-13. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

[4] Brzev, S., C. Scawthorn, A.W. Charleson, L. Allen, M. Greene, K. Jaiswal, and V. Silva. 2013. GEM building taxonomy version 2.0. GEM Technical Report 2013-02 V1.0.0. Pavia, Italy: GEM Foundation.

[5] Calderon A, Silva V. Probabilistic seismic vulnerability and loss assessment of the residential building stock in Costa Rica. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 17: 1257-1284

[6] CI Ambiental. 2019. Technical Report: Second stage of the evaluation of the vulnerability due to earthquakes in the urban area of the municipality of Santiago de Sali, for buildings of normal occupation − Use group I of the NSR-10 regulation V2 (Segunda etapa de la evaluación de la vulnerabilidad por sismos en la zona urbana del municipio de Santiago de Sali, para las edificaciones de ocupación normal − grupo de uso I del reglamento NSR-10 V2). Alcaldía de Santiago de Cali (in Spanish).

[7] Coburn AW, Spence R. Earthquake protection, 2002 2 New York: John Wiley & Sons

[8] Crowley, H., M. Colombi, V. Silva, N. Ahmad, M. Fardis, G. Tsionis, A. Papailia, F. Taucer, et al. 2011. D3.1 Fragility functions for common RC building types in Europe. SYNER-G Deliverable 3.1. http://www.vce.at/SYNER-G/files/dissemination/deliverables.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2021.

[9] Crowley, H., S. Ozcebe, R. Spence, R. Foulser-Piggott, M. Erdik, and K. Alten. 2012. Development of a European building inventory database. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 24–28 September 2012, Lisbon, Portugal.

[10] Crowley H, Pinho R, Elk J, Uilenreef J. Probabilistic damage assessment of buildings due to induced seismicity. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 17: 4495-4516

[11] Crowley, H., D. Rodrigues, V. Silva, V. Despotaki, L. Marins, X. Romão, J.M. Castro, N. Pereira, et al. 2019. The European seismic risk model 2020 (ESRM20). In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Natural Hazards and Infrastructure, 23–26 June 2019, Chania, Greece.

[12] Crowley, H., V. Silva, P. Kalakonas, L. Martins, G. Weatherill, K. Pitilakis, E. Riga, B. Borzi, and M. Faravelli. 2020a. Verification of the European seismic risk model (ESRM20). In Proceedings of the 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 13–18 September 2020a, Sendai, Japan.

[13] Crowley, H., V. Despotaki, D. Rodrigues, V. Silva, D. Toma-Danila, E. Riga, A. Karatzetzou, Z. Zugic, et al. 2020b. Exposure model for European seismic risk assessment. Earthquake Spectra 36(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020919429 .

[14] Crowley, H., V. Despotaki, D. Rodrigues, V. Silva, C. Costa, D. Toma-Danila, E. Riga, A. Karatzetzou, et al. 2020c. European exposure model data repository (v0.9). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4402820. Accessed 12 Dec 2021.

[15] Crowley H, Despotaki V, Silva V, Dabbeek D, Romão X, Pereira N, Castro JM, Daniell J Model of seismic design lateral force levels for the existing reinforced concrete European building stock. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 19: 2839-2865

[16] Crowley, H., V. Silva, L. Martins, X. Romão, and N. Pereira. 2021. Open models and software for assessing the vulnerability of the European building stock. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28–30 June 2021, Streamed from Athens, Greece.

[17] Dabbeek J, Silva V. Modelling the residential building stock in the Middle East for multi-hazard risk assessment. Natural Hazards, 2019, 100: 781-810

[18] Dabbeek, J., V.Silva, C. Galasso, and A. Smith. 2020. Probabilistic earthquake and flood risk assessment in the Middle East. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 49: Article 101662.

[19] EERI (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute). 2000. World housing encyclopedia. Oakland, CA: EERI. https://www.world-housing.net/. Accessed 12 Dec 2021.

[20] Erdik, M., K. Sesetyan, M. Demircioglu, C. Tüzün, D. Giardini, B. Mansouri, S. Lodi and H. Al-nimry, et al. 2012. Assessment of Seismic Hazard in the Middle East and Caucasus: EMME (Earthquake Model of Middle East) Project. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 24–28 September 2012, Lisbon, Portugal.

[21] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1988. Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: A handbook. FEMA 154. Washington, DC: FEMA.

[22] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2003. HAZUS-MH MR4 technical manual. Washington, DC: FEMA.

[23] Gallagher, H., B. Farmer, C. Mendoza, C. Lee, H. Dickson, and M. Greene. 2013. GEM building taxonomy testing and evaluation, GEM building taxonomy global component. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

[24] Grigoratos I, Dabbeek J, Faravelli M, Di Meo A, Cerchiello V, Borzi B, Monteiro R, Ceresa P. Development of a fragility and exposure model for Palestine—Application to the city of Nablus. ProcediaEng, 2016, 161: 2023-2029.

[25] Grünthal, G. 1998. European macroseismic scale 1998 (EMS-98). Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie 15, Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Luxembourg.

[26] Jaiswal, K.S., and D.J. Wald. 2008. Creating a global building inventory for earthquake loss assessment and risk management. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1160. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

[27] Kalman-Šipoš T, Hadzima-Nyarko M. Rapid seismic risk assessment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017, 24: 348-360

[28] Lee, W.V., A. Pomonis, E. So, and R. Spence. 2011. Existing building stock classification in the Cambridge Earthquake Impact Database (CEQID). Report submitted in the context of the “Global Earthquake Consequences Database” global component. Pavia, Italy: GEM Foundation.

[29] Martins L, Silva V. Development of a fragility and vulnerability model for global seismic risk assessment. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 19: 6719-6745

[30] Motamed H, Calderon A, Silva V, Costa C. Development of a probabilistic earthquake loss model for Iran. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 17: 1795-1823

[31] Mouroux, P., E. Bertrand, M. Bour, B. Le Brun, S. Depinois, and P. Masure. 2004. The European RISK-UE project: An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1–6 August 2004, Vancouver, Canada, paper no. 3329.

[32] Nassirpour, A., C. Galasso, and F. D’Ayala. 2018. A mobile application for multi-hazard physical vulnerability prioritization of schools. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 18−21 June 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece.

[33] OmniClass. 2006. OmniClass: A strategy for classifying the built environment. Introduction and user’s guide, 1st edn. Released on 28 March 2006. Alexandria, VA: Omniclass Secretariat, Construction Specifications Institute. https://www.csiresources.org/standards/omniclass. Accessed 1 Feb 2022.

[34] Pittore M, Wieland M, Fleming K. Perspectives on global dynamic exposure modelling for geo-risk assessment. Natural Hazards, 2017, 86(S1): S7-S30

[35] Romão, X., J.M. Castro, N. Pereira, H. Crowley, V. Silva, L. Martins, and D. Rodrigues. 2019. European physical vulnerability model. SERA Deliverable D26.5. https://eu-risk.eucentre.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SERA_D26.5_Physical_Vulnerability.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2021.

[36] Romão, X., N. Pereira, J.M. Castro, F. De Maio, H. Crowley, V. Silva, and L. Martins. 2020. European building vulnerability data repository (v1.2) . Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4719240. Accessed 12 Dec 2021.

[37] Rossetto, T., I. Ioannou, and D.N. Grant. 2014. Guidelines for empirical vulnerability assessment. GEM Technical Report 2014-11. Pavia, Italy: GEM Foundation.

[38] Silva, V., D. Amo-Oduro, A. Calderon, C. Costa, J. Dabbeek, V. Despotaki, L. Martins, M. Pagani, et al. 2020. Development of a global seismic risk model. Earthquake Spectra 36(1). doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019899953.

[39] Silva V, Crowley H, Colombi M. Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia A. Fragility function manager tool. SYNER-G: Typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk, 2014, Dordrecht: Springer 385-402

[40] Silva, V., C. Yepes-Estrada, J. Dabbeek, L. Martins, and S. Brzev. 2018. GED4ALL – Global exposure database for multi-hazard risk analysis – Multi-hazard exposure taxonomy. GEM Technical Report 2018-01. Pavia, Italy: GEM Foundation.

[41] Vellinga M, Oliver P, Bridge A. Atlas of vernacular architecture of the world, 2007, London: Routledge

[42] Villar-Vega M, Silva V. Assessment of earthquake damage considering the characteristics of past events in South America. Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 2017, 99: 86-96

[43] Wieland, M., M. Pittore, S. Parolai, and J. Zschau. 2012. Remote sensing and omnidirectional imaging for efficient building inventory data capturing: Application within the earthquake model Central Asia. In Proceedings of the IEEE IGARSS 2012, 22–27 July 2012, Munich, Germany, 3010–3013.

[44] Yepes-Estrada C, Silva V, Valcárcel J, Acevedo A, Tarque N, Hube M, Coronel G, Santamaría H. Modelling the residential building inventory in South America for seismic risk assessment. Earthquake Spectra, 2017, 33(2): 581-604