SRB (Seismic Resilience-Based) methodology for historical centers: San Marino case study

Abstract

In the last two decades, seismic resilience (SR) has been developed as a main concept for the assessment of the structural vulnerabilities of buildings and city centres. In particular, historical centers consist of adjacent buildings organized in blocks with common characteristics and similar typologies. The paper proposes a methodology to quantify SR for urban regions, by overcoming the state of the art studies that focus on assessing the SR for singular buildings. In this regard, the presented methodology may calculate the SR of blocks of buildings for the assessment of recovery investments of historical city centers. The main idea is to assess the level of vulnerability by accurate 3D surveys and visual inspections in order to select empirical fragility curves. The proposed methodology was herein applied to the city center of San Marino, designated by UNESCO as a world heritage site.

Keywords

SRB (Seismic Resilience-Based) methodology / Resilience / Historical centers / San Marino / UNESCO

References

[1] Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, O’Rourke TD, Reinhorn AM, Shinozuka M, Tierney K, Wallace WA, Von Winterfeldt DA. Framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthq Spectra 2003; 19: 733-52.

[2] Bruneau M, Reinhorn A. Exploring the concept of seismic resilience for acute care facilities. Earthq Spectra 2007; 23: 41-62. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2431396.

[3] Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M. Seismic resilience of a hospital system. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2010; 6: 127-44.

[4] Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M. Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Eng Struct 2010; 32: 3639-49.

[5] Holmes W. Multi-Hazard loss estimation methodology, technical manual. Washington, DC, USA: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); 2003.

[6] Almufti I, Willford M. The REDiTM rating system: resilience-based earthquake design initiative for the next generation of buildings. 2013. 10.4231/D3P26Q437.

[7] Terzic V, Mahin SA. Using PBEE to assess and improve performance of different structural systems for low-rise steel buildings. Int J Saf Secur Eng 2017; 7: 532-44.

[8] Dong Y, Frangopol DM. Performance-based seismic assessment of conventional and base-isolated steel buildings including environmental impact and resilience. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2016; 45. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2682.

[9] Tian Y, Lu X, Lu X, Li M, Guan H. Quantifying the seismic resilience of two tall buildings designed using Chinese and US codes. Earthq Struct 2016; 11: 925-42. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.11.6.925.

[10] Lu X, Xie L, Yu C, Lu X. Development and application of a simplified model for the design of a super-tall mega-braced frame-core tube building. Eng Struct 2016; 110: 116-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.11.039.

[11] Terzic V, Villanueva PK, Saldana D, Yoo DY. Framework for modelling post-earthquake functional recovery of buildings. Eng Struct 2021; 246: 113074.

[12] Molina Hutt C, Vahanvaty T, Kourehpaz P. An analytical framework to assess earthquake-induced downtime and model recovery of building. Earthq Spectra 2022; 38(2): 1283-320.

[13] Molina Hutt C, Hulsey AM, Kakoty P, Deierlein GG, Monfared AK, Yi YW, Hooper JD. Toward functional recovery performance in the seismic design of modern tall buildings. Earthq Spectra 2022; 38(1): 283-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211033620.

[14] Molina Hutt C, Almufti I, Willford M, Deierlein G. Seismic loss and downtime assessment of existing tall steel-framed buildings and strategies for increased resilience. J Struct Eng 2016; 142: C4015005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001314.

[15] Omoya M, Burton H, Baroud H. Bayesian parameter estimation of duration-based variables used in post-earthquake building recovery modeling. Earthq Spectra 2018; 38(3): 2088-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211073717.

[16] Wang WL, Van de Lindt J. Quantitative modeling of residential building disaster recovery and effects of pre- and post-event policies. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2021; 59: 102259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102259.

[17] Pang Y, Xiaowei Wang X. Enhanced endurance-time-method (EETM) for efficient seismic fragility, risk and resilience assessment of structure. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2021; 147: 106731.

[18] Forcellini D. An expeditious framework for assessing the seismic resilience (SR) of structural configurations. Structures 2023; 56: 105015.

[19] Chen X, Ikago K, Guan Z, Li J, Wang X. Lead-rubber-bearing with negative stiffness springs (LRB-NS) for base-isolation seismic design of resilient bridges: a theoretical feasibility study. Eng Struct 2021; 266: 114601.

[20] Forcellini D. Quantification of the seismic resilience of bridge classes. J Infrastruct Syst 2024; 30(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/JITSE4.ISENG-2376.

[21] Mina D, Karampour H, Forcellini D. Resilience of HP/HT pipelines to combined seismic and thermal loadings. Ocean Eng 2023; 275: 114098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114098.

[22] León J, March A. Urban morphology as a tool for supporting tsunami rapid resilience: a case study of Talcahuano, Chile. Habitat Int 2014; 43: 250-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.04.006.

[23] Tumini I, Villagra-Islas P, Herrmann-Lunecke G. Evaluating reconstruction effects on urban resilience: a comparison between two Chilean tsunami-prone cities. Nat Hazards 2017; 85: 1363-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2630-4.

[24] Rus K, Kilar V, Koren D. Resilience assessment of complex urban systems to natural disasters: a new literature review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2018; 31: 311-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.05.015.

[25] Bernardini G, Ferreira TM. Simulating to evaluate, manage and improve earthquake resilience in historical city centers: application to an emergency simulation-based method to the historic centre of Coimbra. ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 2020: 651-7. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIV-M-1-2020-651-2020.

[26] Zhao R, Fang C, Liu J, Zhang L. The evaluation and obstacle analysis of urban resilience from the multidimensional perspective in Chinese cities. Sustain Cities Soc 2022; 86: 104160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104160.

[27] Zhai C, Zhao Y, Wen WP, Qin H, Xie LL. A novel urban seismic resilience assessment method considering the weighting of post-earthquake loss and recovery time. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2023; 84: 103453. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJDRR.2022.103453.

[28] D’Amico A, Fatiguso F, Sparvoli G, Curr E, Bernardini G, Quagliarini E. Behavioural-based risk of the Built Environment: key performance indicators for sudden-onset disaster in urban open spaces. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2024; 103: 104328.

[29] CEN, European Committee for Standardisation EN 1998-1 (2004): Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. The European Union Regulation 305/2011, 2004/18/EC.

[30] Mackie K, Lu J, Elgamal A. Performance-based earthquake assessment of bridge systems including ground-foundation interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2012; 2: 184-96.

[31] Zelaschi C, De Angelis G, Giardi F, Forcellini D, Monteiro R, Papadrakakis M. Performance based earthquake engineering approach applied to bridges in a road network. In: Proc 5th COMPDYN and ECCOMAS; 2015. p. 900-10. https://doi.org/10.7712/120115.3438.1833.

[32] Borzi B, Faravelli M, Onida M, et al. Piattaforma IRMA (italian risk maps). In: Proc 37esimo Convegno Naz GNGTS; 2018. p. 102-6.

[33] Dolce M, Borzi B, Da Porto F, et al. Mappe di rischio per il territorio Italiano. In: Proc 18th Ital Conf Earthq Eng ANIDIS; 2019. SS02-21-SS02-3.

[34] Faravelli M, Polli D, Quaroni D, et al. Italian platform for seismic risk and damage scenario evaluation. In: Proc 7th Int Conf Comput Methods Struct Dyn Earthq Eng COMPDYN; 2019.

[35] Dolce M, Speranza E, Giordano F, Borzi B, Bocchi F, Conte C, Di Meo A, Faravelli M, Pascale V. Observed damage database of past Italian earthquakes: the DaDO WebGIS. Boll Geofis Teor Appl 2019; 60(2): 141-64.

[36] Rosti A, Rota M, Penna A. Damage classification and derivation of damage probability matrices from L’Aquila (2009) post-earthquake survey data. Bull Earthq Eng 2018; 16(9): 3687-720.

[37] Rosti A, Rota M, Penna A. Damage empirical fragility curves for Italian URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2021; 19: 3057-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00845-9.

[38] Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia CL. Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2008; 28(10): 933-47.

[39] Mata R, Nũnez E, Forcellini D. Seismic resilience of composite moment frames buildings with slender built-up columns. J Build Eng 2025; 111: 113532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2025.113532.

[40] Kameshwar S, Forcellini D, Barbosa RA. Assessment of building recovery functions for local and global resilience assessment to tsunamis. Resilient Cities Struct 2025; 4(3): 132-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcns.2025.10.001.

[41] Forcellini D, Kalfas K. A framework to quantify the impact of deterioration on the seismic resilience of structures. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2025: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2025.2591824.

[42] D’Ayala DF, Paganoni S. Assessment and analysis of damage in L’aquila historic city center after 6th April 2009. Bull Earthq Eng 2011; 9(1): 81-104.

[43] Acito M, Bocciarelli M, Chesi C, Milani G. Collapse of the clock tower in Finale Emilia after the May 2012 Emilia Romagna earthquake sequence: numerical insight. Eng Struct 2014; 72: 70-91.

[44] Fragorara G, Boscato G, Ceravolo R, Russo S, Ientile S, Pecorelli ML, Quattrone A. Dynamic investigation on the Mirandola bell tower in post-earthquake scenarios. Bull Earthq Eng 2017; 15(1): 313-37.

[45] DPCM (2011) DIRETTIVA DEL PRESIDENTE DEL CONSIGLIO DEI MINISTRI 9 febbraio 2011. Valutazione e riduzione del rischio sismico del patrimonio culturale con riferimento alle Norme tecniche per le costruzioni di cui al decreto del Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti del 14 gennaio 2008. (11A02374) (GU Serie Generale n. 47 del 26-02- 2011 - Suppl).

[46] Morganti L. Il patrimonio dello Stato. L’architettura storica della Repubblica di San Marino, San Marino. 2001.

[47] Abdel Raheem SE. Mitigation measures for earthquake induced pounding effects on seismic performance of adjacent buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2014; 12(4): 1705-24.

[48] Miari M, Choong KK, Jankowski R. Seismic pounding between adjacent buildings: identification of parameters, soil interaction issues and mitigation measures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2019; 121: 135-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.02.024.

[49] El Hoseny M, Forcellini D, Ma J. The role of the foundation gap on the pounding between low-rise buildings. Structures 2024; 63: 106412. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISTRUC.2024.106412.

[50] Kaartinen E, Dunphy K, Sadhu A. LiDAR-based structural health monitoring: applications in civil infrastructure systems. Sensors 2022; 22(12): 4610. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22124610.

[51] Lo E, Meyer D, Zheng E, Trinh S, Forcellini D, Guerra G , Cultural Heritage Engineering Initiative (CHEI). Mount Titano - photogrammetry - aerial. Distributed by Open Heritage 3D 2023. https://doi.org/10.26301/296p-dn53.

[52] Lo E, Meyer D, Zheng E, Trinh S, Forcellini D, Guerra G , Cultural Heritage Engineering Initiative (CHEI). La Cesta - photogrammetry - aerial, LiDAR - terrestrial, photogrammetry - terrestrial. Distributed by Open Heritage 3D 2023. https://doi.org/10.26301/2h6g-jz80.

[53] Lo E, Meyer D, Zheng E, Trinh S, Forcellini D, Guerra G , Cultural Heritage Engineering Initiative (CHEI). La Guiata - photogrammetry - aerial, LiDAR - terrestrial, photogrammetry - terrestrial. Distributed by Open Heritage 3D 2023. https://doi.org/10.26301/ywq4-dj36.

[54] Lo E, Meyer D, Zheng E, Trinh S, Forcellini D, Guerra G , Cultural Heritage Engineering Initiative (CHEI). La Montale - photogrammetry - aerial, LiDAR - terrestrial, photogrammetry - terrestrial. Distributed by Open Heritage 3D 2023. https://doi.org/10.26301/sebe-xm37.

[55] Lo E, Meyer D, Zheng E, Trinh S, Forcellini D, Guerra G , Cultural Heritage Engineering Initiative (CHEI). Basilica di San Marino and Chiesa di San Pietro - photogrammetry - aerial, LiDAR - terrestrial, photogrammetry - terrestrial. Distributed by Open Heritage 3D 2023. https://doi.org/10.26301/shvk-8173.

[56] McAvoy S, Forcellini D, Kuester F. Mt. Titano historic Center Street Survey - photogrammetry - terrestrial, LiDAR - terrestrial. Collected by Distributed by Open Heritage 3D 2024. https://doi.org/10.26301/380r-7d29.