Structural height, amplification and damages during the superficial earthquakes at Casamicciola, Ischia Island (2017), and Santa Venerina, Catania (2018), Italy

References

• Abide A, Vasconcelos G, Lourenco PB. 2021. Overview on the nonlinear static procedures and performance-based approach on modern unreinforced masonry buildings with structural irregularity. Buildings. 11(4):147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ademović N, Hadzima-Nyarko M, Zagora N, Piljug A, Medanović Ć. 2022. Vulnerability of residential buildings in Sarajevo, Advanced technologies. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Innovative and Interdisciplinary Applications of Advanced Technologies (IAT). Systems and Applications VII. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Springer; 3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Ansal A, Özaydın K, Edinçliler A, Sağlamer A, Sucuoğlu H, Özdemir P. 2003. Earthquake master plan for Istanbul. Metropolitan Munіcіpalіty of Istanbul Plannіng and Construction Dіrectorіat. Geotechnical and Earthquake Investіgatіon Department, Istanbul, Turkey; 1, p. 1–568.
   Google Scholar
• Askan A, Yucemen M, Semih A. 2010. Probabilistic methods for the estimation of potential seismic damage: application to reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. Struct Saf. 32(4):262–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ATC Applied Technological Council. 1978. Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. ATC3-06, Palo Alto, California: Applied Technological Council.
   Google Scholar
• Balendra T, Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Kong KH. 2002. Analysis of long-distance earthquake tremors and base shear demand for buildings in Singapore. Eng Struct. 24(1):99–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilgin H, Shkodrani N, Hysenlliu M, Ozmen HB, Işık E, Harirchian E. 2021. Damage and performance evaluation of masonry buildings constructed in 1970s during the 2019 Albania earthquakes. Eng Fail Anal. 31(15):105824.
   Google Scholar
• Bolt BA. 1973. Duration of strong ground motion. In Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 25–29 June 1973. 292:25–29.
   Google Scholar
• Boore DM, Akkar S. 2003. Effects of causal and acausal filters on elastic and inelastic response spectra. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 32(11):1729–1748.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boutaraa Z, Caterina N, Ahmed A, Olivier S. 2018. Buildings vulnerability assessment and damage seismic scenarios at urban scale: application to Chlef City (Algeria). J Civ Eng. 22:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celebi M. 2000. Revelations from a single strong-motion record retrieved during the 27 June 1998 Adana (Turkey) earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 20(5-8):283–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEN. 2004. European Prestandard ENV 1998-1-4: eurocode 8 – Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1-4: strengthening and repair of buildings. Brussels: Comité Européen de Normalisation.
   Google Scholar
• Chopra AK. 1995. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Costa C, Figueiredo R, Silva V, Bazzurro P. 2020. Application of open tools and datasets to probabilistic modeling of road traffic disruptions due to earthquake damage. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 49(12):1236–1255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Novellis V, Carlino S, Castaldo R, Tramelli A, De Luca C, Pino NA, Pepe S, Convertito V, Zinno I, De Martino P, et al., 2018. The 21 August 2017 Ischia (Italy) earthquake source model inferred from seismological, GPS, and DInSAR measurements. Geophys Res Lett. 45(5):2193–2202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devoti R, De Martino P, Pietrantorio G, Dolce M. 2018. Coseismic displacements on Ischia island, real-time GPS positioning constraints on earthquake source location. Ann Geophys. 61(3):1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolce M, Prota A, Borzi B, Da Porto F, Lagomarsino S, Magenes G, Moroni C, Penna A, Polese M, Speranza E, et al. 2021. Seismic risk assessment of residential buildings in Italy. Bull Earthquake Eng. 19(8):2999–3032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drimmel J. 1984. A theoretical basis for macroseismic scales and some implications for practical work. Eng Geol. 20(1-2):99–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du W, Pan TC. 2016. Site response analyses using downhole arrays at various seismic hazard levels of Singapore. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 90:169–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du W, Wang G. 2017. Prediction equations for ground motion significant durations using the NGA-West2 database. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 107(1):319–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du W, Goh KS, Pan TC. 2017. Methodology for estimating human perception to tremors in high-rise buildings. J Seismol. 21(4):667–682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Maissi AM, Argyroudis SA, Nazri FM. 2020. Seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies for roadway assets and networks: a state-of-the-art review. Sustainability. 13(1):61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elnashai AS, Di Sarno L. 2008. Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• EPPO. 1984. Post-earthquake damage inspection of buildings: guidelines and forms for post-earthquake damage surveys. Athens, Greece: Earthquake Prot. Plann. Organiz.
   Google Scholar
• EPPO. 1997. Instructions and forms for post-earthquake usability assessment of buildings. Athens, Greece: Earthquake Prot. Plann. Organiz.
   Google Scholar
• EPPO. 2000. Provisions for pre-earthquake vulnerability assessment of public buildings. Athens, Greece: Earthquake Prot. Plann. Organiz.
   Google Scholar
• ESDU - Engineering Sciences Data Unit. 1991. Structural parameters used in response calculations (estimation of numerical values). London UK: ESDU International Item N. 91001.
   Google Scholar
• Falcone R, Lima C, Martinelli E. 2020. Soft computing techniques in structural and earthquake engineering: a literature review. Eng Struct. 207:110269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang JQ, Li QS, Jeary AP, Liu DK. 1999. Damping of tall buildings: its evaluation and probabilistic characteristics. Struct Design Tall Build. 8(2):145–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fathi-Fazl R, Fazileh F, Cai Z, Cortés-Puentes WL. 2022. Development of quick seismic evaluation procedure for existing buildings in Canada. Can J Civ Eng. 0(Just-IN):12–17.
   Google Scholar
• FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2003. Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology—earthquake module: HAZUS-MH MR1 advanced engineering building module technical and user’s manual. 3rd ed. Washington, DC, USA: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
   Google Scholar
• FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2015a. Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook FEMA P-154, 3rd ed. Washington, DC, USA. Applied Technology Council (ATC), Federal Emergency Management Agency.
   Google Scholar
• FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2015b. Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: supporting documentation FEMA P-155. 3rd ed. Washington, DC, USA: Applied Technology Council (ATC), Federal Emergency Management Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Freddi F, Novelli V, Gentile R, Stoyan E, Veliu A, Andreev A, Greco F, Zhuleku E. 2021. Observations from the 26th November 2019 Albania earthquake: the earthquake engineering field investigation team (EEFIT) mission. Bull Earthq Eng. 19(5):1–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatti M. 2018a. Experimental calculation of the damping ratio in buildings hosting permanent GPS stations during the recent Italian earthquakes. Adv Civil Eng Tech. 1(3):1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Gatti M. 2018b. Elastic period of vibration calculated experimentally in buildings hosting permanent GPS stations. Earthq Eng Eng Vib. 17(3):607–625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatti M. 2020. Relation between dynamic amplification, structural height and damage in buildings affected by the recent Italian earthquakes. Geomat Nat Haz Risk. 11(1):1154–1174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghaboussi J. 2018. Soft computing in engineering. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis; p. 1–220.
   Google Scholar
• Goel RK, Chopra AK. 1997. Period formulas for moment-resisting frame buildings. J Struct Eng. 123(11):1454–1461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grünthal G. 1998. European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). European seismological commission, subcommission on engineering seismology, working group macroseismic scales. Cahiers Du Centre Européen De Géodynamique Et De Séismologie. 15th ed. p. 1–99
   Google Scholar
• Harirchian E, Lahmer T. 2020. Improved rapid visual earthquake hazard safety evaluation of existing buildings using a type-2 fuzzy logic model. Appl Sci. 10(7):2375.
   Google Scholar
• Harirchian E, Hosseini Aghakouchaki SE, Jadhav K, Kumari V, Rasulzade S, Işık E, Wasif M, Lahmer T. 2021. A review on application of soft computing techniques for the rapid visual safety evaluation and damage classification of existing buildings. J Build Eng. 43(05):102536.
   Google Scholar
• Hong L, Hwang W. 2000. Empirical formula for fundamental vibration periods of reinforced concrete buildings in Taiwan. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 29(3):327–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hysenlliu M, Bilgin H. 2021. The use of macro element approach for the seismic risk assessment of brick masonry buildings. Critical thinking in the sustainable rehabilitation and risk management of the built environment. Springer; p. 362–373.
   Google Scholar
• Işık E, Emre Ulu A, Büyüksaraç A, Cihan Mehmet A. 2022. A study on damages in masonry structures and determination of damage levels in the 2020 Sivrice (Elazig) earthquake. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Innovative and Interdisciplinary Applications of Advanced Technologies (IAT). Systems and Applications VII. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 26–35. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• ISTAT 2018. Permanent census of population and housing, https://www.istat.it/it/censimenti-permanenti.
   Google Scholar
• JBDPA Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association. 2001. Seismic evaluation and retrofit. Tokyo, Japan: JBDPA.
   Google Scholar
• Jeary AP. 1986. Damping in tall buildings. A mechanism and a predictor. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 14(5):733–750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ji D, Wen W, Zhai C, Katsanos EI. 2020. Maximum inelastic displacement of mainshock-damaged structures under succeeding aftershock. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 136:106248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanai K. 1957. Semi-empirical formula for the seismic characteristics of the ground. Bull Earthq Res Inst. 35(2):309–325.
   Google Scholar
• Kostinakis K, Morfidis K. 2020. Application of artificial neural networks for the assessment of the seismic damage of buildings with irregular infills’ distribution. In Seismic behaviour and design of irregular and complex civil structures III. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; p. 291–306.
   Google Scholar
• Lazaridis PC, Kavvadias IE, Demertzis K, Iliadis L, Papaleonidas A, Vasiliadis LK, Elenas A. 2021. Structural damage prediction under seismic sequence using neural networks. Proceedings of the 8th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Athens, Greece, 28–30 June 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Leti M, Bilgin H. 2022. Predicting the seismic performance of typical r/c residential buildings. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Innovative and Interdisciplinary Applications of Advanced Technologies (IAT). Systems and Applications VII. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems:15–24. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Li J, He Z, Zhao X. 2021. A data-driven building’s seismic response estimation method using a deep convolutional neural network. IEEE Access. 9:50061–50077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin YY, Miranda E, Chang KC. 2005. Evaluation of damping reduction factors for estimating elastic response of structures with high damping. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 34(11):1427–1443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynn PA, Fuerst W. 1998. Introductory digital signal processing with computer applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. p. 1–496.
   Google Scholar
• Nappi R, Alessio G, Gaudiosi G, Nave R, Marotta E, Siniscalchi V, Civico R, Pizzimenti L, Peluso R, Belviso P, et al. 2018. The 21 August 2017 Md 4.0 Casamicciola earthquake: first evidence of coseismic normal surface faulting at the Ischia volcanic island. Seismol Res Lett. 89(4):1323–1334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCRRE National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering di Taiwan. 2018. VV.AA NCRRE Research AA.VV. NAR Labs Taipei. 200, p. 1–144.
   Google Scholar
• NTC. 2018. Technical regulations for buildings, Official document of the Italian Government n° 42. 20 February 2018 (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• NZSEE New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. 2006. Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquake. Recommendations of a Nzsee Study Group on Earthquake Risk Buildings. 3:1–388.
   Google Scholar
• Oh BK, Park Y, Park HS. 2020. Seismic response prediction method for building structures using convolutional neural network. Struct Control Health Monit. 27(5):e2519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OPCM 3274. 2003. Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica. Official document of the Italian Government n° 105 8 May 2003 (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Ornthammarath T, Warnitchai P, Worakanchana K, Zaman S, Sigbjörnsson R, Lai CG. 2011. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Thailand. Bull Earthquake Eng. 9(2):367–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozcebe G, Yucemen MS, Aydogan V. 2004. Statistical seismic vulnerability assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey on a regional scale. J Earthq Eng. 8(5):749–773.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palasri C, Ruangrassamee A. 2010. Probabilistic seismic hazard maps of Thailand. J Earthquake and Tsunami. 04(04):369–386.
   Google Scholar
• Pan TC, Megawati K, Goh KS. 2011. Response of high-rise buildings in Singapore due to a potential giant earthquake in the Sumatran megathrust. J Earthq Eng. 15(sup1):90–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patanè D, Tusa G, Yang W, Astuti A, Colino A, Costanza A, D’Anna G, Di Prima S, Fertitta G, Mangiagli S, et al. 2022. The urban seismic observatory of Catania (Italy): a real-time seismic monitoring at urban scale. Remote Sens. 14(11):2583.
   Google Scholar
• Pomonis A, Gaspari M, Karababa F. 2012. Seismic vulnerability assessment for buildings in Greece based on observed damage data sets. Boll Geofis Teor Appl. 54(X):1–34.
   Google Scholar
• Rai DC. 2005. Review of documents on seismic evaluation of existing buildings. Kampur, India: Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. IITK-GSDMA-EQ03-V1.0; p. 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Sarmaha T, Dasab S. 2018. Earthquake vulnerability assessment for rcc buildings of Guwahati City using rapid visual screening. Procedia Eng. 212:214–221.
   Google Scholar
• Satake N, Suda K, Arakawa T, Sasaki A, Tamura Y. 2003. Damping evaluation using full scale data of buildings in Japan. J Struct Eng. 129(4):470–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SEAOC. 1996. Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. San Francisco, California: Seismological Engineers Association of California.
   Google Scholar
• Shkodrani N, Bilgin H, Hysenlliu M, Department of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic University of Tirana 2021. Influence of interventions on the seismic performance of URM buildings designed according to pre-modern codes. Res Eng Struct Mater. 7(2):315–330.
   Google Scholar
• Sieberg A. 1930. Geologie der Erdbeben. Handboch der Geophys. 2(4):552–554. [Tabb. 100, 101, 102, 103]. Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Stearns S, David R. 1996. Signal processing algorithms. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1, p. 1–297.
   Google Scholar
• Sun H, Burton HV, Huang H. 2021. Machine learning applications for building structural design and performance assessment: state-of-the-art review. J Build Eng. 33:101816.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TDMRC (Tsunami Disaster Mitigation Research Center). 2019. Report on disaster risk maps for Aceh (tsunami, earthquake, landslides, and floods). Banda Aceh, Indonesia: TDMRC.
   Google Scholar
• Thaler D, Stoffel M, Markert B, Bamer F. 2021. Machine-learning-enhanced tail end prediction of structural response statistics in earthquake engineering. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 50(8):2098–2114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trifumac MD, Brady AG. 1975. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seism Soc Am. 65(3):581–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tusa G, Langer H. 2016. Prediction of ground motion parameters for the volcanic area of Mount Etna. J Seismol. 20(1):1–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallejo CB. 2010. Rapid visual screening of buildings in the city of Manila, Philippines. Proceedings of 5th Civil Engineering Conference in the Asian Region and Australasian. Sydney ; p. 510–518
   Google Scholar
• Vrochidou E, Bizergianidou V, Andreadis I, Elenas A. 2021. Assessment and localization of structural damage in r/c structures through intelligent seismic signal processing. Appl Artif Intell. 35(9):670–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward HS. 1966. Earthquake load provisions of the national building code of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: National Research Council of Canada, Division of Building Research; p. 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Warnitchai P, Sangarayakul C, Ashford SA. 2000. Seismic hazard in Bangkok due to distant earthquakes. Proceeding of the 2nd Multi-lateral Workshop on Development of Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster Mitigation Technologies and their Integration for the Asia-Pacific Region. Kobe, Japan: Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Center (EDM).
   Google Scholar
• World Bank Gpurl D-Ras Team. 2019. M 6.4 Albania earthquake global rapid post disaster damage estimation (grade) report. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; p. 1–31.
   Google Scholar
• Zucconi M, Sorrentino L, Ferlito R. 2017. Principal component analysis for a seismic usability model of unreinforced masonry buildings. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng. 96:64–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou Z, Yu X, Lu D. 2020. Identifying optimal intensity measures for predicting damage potential of mainshock–aftershock sequences. Appl Sci. 10(19):6795.
   Google Scholar
• Xie Y, Ebad Sichani M, Padgett JE, DesRoches R. 2020. The promise of implementing machine learning in earthquake engineering: a state-of-the-art review. Earthq Spectra. 36:769–1801.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yariyan P, Zabihi H, Wolf ID, Karami M, Amiriyan S. 2020. Earthquake risk assessment using an integrated fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with artificial neural networks based on GIS: a case study of Sanandaj in Iran. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 50:101705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu X, Zhou Z, Du W, Lu D. 2021. Development of fragility surfaces for reinforced concrete buildings under mainshock‐aftershock sequences. Earthq Engng Struct Dyn. 50(15):3981–4000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar