A rapid method to census the seismic risk class of masonry buildings

References

• Ademović N, Kalman Šipoš T, Hadzima-Nyarko M. 2020. Rapid assessment of earthquake risk for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bull Earthquake Eng. 18(5):1835–1863. doi: 10.1007/s10518-019-00775-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alam MN, Tesfamariam S, Alam MS. 2013. GIS-based seismic damage estimation: case study for the City of Kelowna, BC. Nat Hazards Rev. 14(1):66–78. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000082.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albayrak U, Canbaz M, Albayrak G. 2015. A rapid seismic risk assessment method for existing building stock in urban areas. Proc Eng. 118:1242–1249. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.476.
   Google Scholar
• Arkan E, Işık E, Harirchian E, Topçubaşı M, Avcil F. 2023. Architectural characteristics and determination seismic risk priorities of traditional masonry structures: a case study for Bitlis (Eastern Türkiye). Buildings. 13(4):1042. doi: 10.3390/buildings13041042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arkan E, Işik E, Avcil F, İzol R, Büyüksaraç A. 2023. Seismic damages in masonry structural walls and solution suggestions. Acad Platform J Nat Hazards Disaster Manage. 4(2):49–64. doi: 10.52114/apjhad.1400644.
   Google Scholar
• Barbat AH, Carreño ML, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Cardona OD, Marulanda MC. 2010. Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation methods for urban areas. A review with application to a pilot area. Struct Infrastruct Eng. 6(1–2):17–38. doi: 10.1080/15732470802663763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardini A, Lagomarsino S, Mannella A, Martinelli A, Milano L, Parodi S. 2010. Forecasting seismic damage scenarios of residential buildings from rough inventories: a case-study in the Abruzzo Region (Italy). Proc Inst Mech Eng O: J Risk Reliab. 224(4):279–296. doi: 10.1243/1748006XJRR305.
   Google Scholar
• Braga F, Morelli F, Picchi C, Salvatore W. 2017. Development of a macroseismic model for the seismic risk classification of existing buildings. Proceedings XVII Congress ANIDIS Earthquake Engineering in Italy; Sep 17–21; Pistoia, Italy. p. 13–22.
   Google Scholar
• Cacace F, Zuccaro G, De Gregorio D, Perelli FL. 2018. Building inventory at national scale by evaluation of seismic vulnerability classes distribution based on census data analysis: BINC procedure. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 28:384–393. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.03.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calderoni B, Sandoli A, Cordasco EA. 2017. Quick assessment of the seismic vulnerability of Italian urban centers: typological and structural classification of the existing masonry and r.c. buildings. Struct Mag. 210:1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Ceroni F, Caterino N, Vuoto A. 2020. Simplified seismic vulnerability assessment methods: a comparative analysis with reference to regional school building stock in Italy. Appl Sci. 10(19):6771. doi: 10.3390/app10196771.
   Google Scholar
• Codd EF. 1970. A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Inform Retrieval. 13(6):377–387.
   Google Scholar
• Codd EF. 1972a. Relational completeness of data base sublanguages. San Jose, California: IBM Research Laboratory; p. 65–98.
   Google Scholar
• Codd EF. 1972b. Further normalization of the data base relational model. In: Rustin RJ, editor. Data base system: courant computer science symposia series 6. Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Cosenza E, Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Dolce M, Moroni C, Prota A, Renzi E. 2018. The Italian guidelines for seismic risk classification of constructions: technical principles and validation. Bull Earthquake Eng. 16(12):5905–5935. doi: 10.1007/s10518-018-0431-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Amato M, Laguardia R, Di Trocchio G, Coltellacci M, Gigliotti R. 2022. Seismic risk assessment for masonry buildings typologies from L’Aquila 2009 earthquake damage data. J Earthquake Eng. 26(9): 4545–4579.
   Google Scholar
• Dou CE, Jia YH, Xie HQ. 2012. Construction and information management of Lianyungang emergency shelters for earthquake disaster based on GIS. AMR. 610–613:3624–3627. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.610-613.3624.
   Google Scholar
• Fallah-Aliabadi S, Ostadtaghizadeh A, Ardalan A, Eskandari M, Fatemi F, Mirjalili MR, Khazai B. 2020. Risk analysis of hospitals using GIS and HAZUS: a case study of Yazd County, Iran. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 47:101552. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira TM, Vicente R, Varum H. 2014. Seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry facade walls: development, application and validation of a new scoring. Struct Eng Mech. 50(4):541–561. doi: 10.12989/sem.2014.50.4.541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garavaglia E, Angjeliu G, Cardani G. 2023. Simplified seismic vulnerability analysis of historic residential buildings with fragility curves. Proc Struct Integrity. 44:155–162. doi: 10.1016/j.prostr.2023.01.021.
   Google Scholar
• Gatti M. 2020. Relation between dynamic amplification, structural height and damage in buildings affected by the recent Italian earthquakes. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk. 11(1):1154–1174. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2020.1778107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatti M. 2023. Structural height, amplification and damages during the superficial earthquakes at Casamicciola, Ischia Island (2017), and Santa Venerina, Catania (2018), Italy. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk. 14(1):2182172. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2023.2182172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grünthal G. 1998. European macroseismic scale 1998. Luxembourg: Centre Europèen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie.
   Google Scholar
• Hashemi M, Alesheikh AA. 2011. A GIS-based earthquake damage assessment and settlement methodology. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 31(11):1607–1617. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.07.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang M, Zhang D, Li P, Zhang Y, Zhang R. 2017. Study of earthquake disaster prediction system of Langfang city based on GIS. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 224(1):012049. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/224/1/012049.
   Google Scholar
• Irwansyah E, Hartati S. 2014. Assessment of building damage hazard caused by earthquake: integration of FNN and GIS. IERI Proc. 10:196–202. doi: 10.1016/j.ieri.2014.09.077.
   Google Scholar
• Işık E. 2023. Structural failures of adobe buildings during the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) earthquakes. Appl Sci. 13(15):8937. doi: 10.3390/app13158937.
   Google Scholar
• Işık E, Avcil F, Büyüksaraç A, İzol R, Arslan MH, Aksoylu C, Harirchian E, Eyisüren O, Arkan E, Güngür M, et al. 2023. Structural damages in masonry buildings in Adıyaman during the Kahramanmaraş (Turkiye) earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6) on 06 February 2023. Eng Fail Anal. 151:107405. doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISTAT. 2011. Permanent census of population and housing, https://www.istat.it/it/censimenti-permanenti.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson TL, Johannes TW. 2016. Using geographic information systems to support decision making in disaster response. IDT. 10(2):193–207. doi: 10.3233/IDT-160255.
   Google Scholar
• Khemis A, Athmani A, Ademović N. 2023. Rapid application of the RISK-UE LM2 method for the seismic vulnerability analysis of the Algerian masonry buildings. Int J Architect Heritage. 18(5):788–808. doi: 10.1080/15583058.2023.2195379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kun Y, Quan-Li X, Shuang-Yun P, Yan-Bo C. 2006. The design and implementation of urban earthquake disaster loss evaluation and emergency response decision support systems based on ArcGIS. IEEE International Symposium on Geoscience and Remote Sensing; p. 892–895.
   Google Scholar
• Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S. 2006. Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthquake Eng. 4(4):415–443. doi: 10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laguardia R., D’Amato, M., Coltellacci, M., Di Trocchio, G., and Gigliotti, R. 2023. Fragility curves and economic loss assessment of RC buildings after L’Aquila 2009 earthquake. J Earthquake Eng. 27(5): 1126–1150.
   Google Scholar
• Leggieri V, Mastrodonato G, Uva G. 2022. GIS multisource data for the seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings at the urban scale. Buildings. 12(5):523. doi: 10.3390/buildings12050523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lestuzzi P, Podestà S, Luchini C, Garofano A, Kazantzidou-Firtinidou D, Bozzano C, Bischof P, Haffter A, Rouiller J-D. 2016. Seismic vulnerability assessment at urban scale for two typical Swiss cities using Risk-UE methodology. Nat Hazards. 84(1):249–269. doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2420-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebenberg K, Smit A, Coetzee S, Kijko A. 2017. A GIS approach to seismic risk assessment with an application to mining-related seismicity in Johannesburg, South Africa. Acta Geophys. 65(4):645–657. doi: 10.1007/s11600-017-0052-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maio R, Ferreira TM, Vicente R, Estêvão J. 2016. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical urban centres: case study of the old city centre of Faro, Portugal. J Risk Res. 19(5):551–580. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2014.988285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meroni F, Squarcina T, Pessina V, Locati M, Modica M, Zoboli R. 2017. A damage scenario for the 2012 Northern Italy earthquakes and estimation of the economic losses to residential buildings. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 8(3):326–341. doi: 10.1007/s13753-017-0142-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milani G, Valente M. 2015. Failure analysis of seven masonry churches severely damaged during the 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) earthquake: non-linear dynamic analyses vs conventional static approaches. Eng Fail Anal. 54:13–56. doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.03.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milani G, Valente M. 2016. Seismic assessment of historical masonry towers by means of simplified approaches and standard FEM. Constr Build Mater. 108:74–104. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.01.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministerial Decree no. 58 28/2/2017 Allegato A e B: linee Guida per la classificazione del rischio sismico delle costruzioni (in Italian). Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, Italy (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Ministerial Decree no. 65 7/3/2017 Allegato A e B: linee Guida per la classificazione del rischio sismico delle costruzioni (in Italian). Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, Italy (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Mussumeci G, Falchi U, Condorelli A. 2004. Data survey and management techniques in civil protection emergencies. In XX Congress of International Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS), Istanbul.
   Google Scholar
• Neves F, Costa A, Vicente R, Oliveira CS, Varum H. 2012. Seismic vulnerability assessment and characterisation of the buildings on Faial Island, Azores. Bull Earthquake Eng. 10(1):27–44. doi: 10.1007/s10518-011-9276-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NTC. 2018. Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Italy: Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• OPCM 3274. 2003. Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274. Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Polese M, d’Aragona MG, Prota A. 2019. Simplified approach for building inventory and seismic damage assessment at the territorial scale: an application for a town in southern Italy. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 121:405–420. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.03.028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regione Veneto. 2004. DB Topografico relaise 2.6. L.R. 16/07/1976 n. 28 Formazione della Carta Tecnica Regionale (in Italian).
   Google Scholar
• Ricci P, Verderame GM, Manfredi G, Pollino M, Borfecchia F, De Cecco L, Martini S, Pascale C, Ristoratore E, James V. 2011. Seismic vulnerability assessment using field survey and remote sensing techniques. In Proceedings, Part II 11 (109–124) International Conference of Computational Science and its Applications – ICCSA; June 20–23, 2011; Santander, Spain. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sandoli A, Calderoni B. 2018. Assessment of the seismic vulnerability at territorial scale: a new structural–typological classification of existing buildings and definition of fragility curves. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Masonry Conference; 9–11 July 2018; Milan, Italy. p. 153–168.
   Google Scholar
• Sauti NS, Daud ME, Kaamin M, Sahat S. 2021. GIS spatial modelling for seismic risk assessment based on exposure, resilience, and capacity indicators to seismic hazard: a case study of Pahang, Malaysia. Geomat Nat Hazard Risk. 12(1):1948–1972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Šipoš TK, Hadzima-Nyarko M. 2017. Rapid seismic risk assessment. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 24:348–360. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.06.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicente R, Parodi S, Lagomarsino S, Varum H, Silva JM. 2011. Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment: case study of the historic city centre of Coimbra, Portugal. Bull Earthquake Eng. 9(4):1067–1096. doi: 10.1007/s10518-010-9233-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhai Y, Chen S, Ouyang Q. 2019. GIS-based seismic hazard prediction system for urban earthquake disaster prevention planning. Sustainability. 11(9):2620. doi: 10.3390/su11092620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuccaro G, Cacace F, De Gregorio D. 2012. Buildings inventory for seismic vulnerability assessment on the basis of Census data assessment at national and regional scale. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Zuccaro G, Cacace F. 2015. Seismic vulnerability assessment based on typological characteristics. The first level procedure “SAVE”. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng. 69:262–269. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuccaro G, Dolce M, Perelli FL, De Gregorio D, Speranza E. 2023. CARTIS: a method for the typological-structural characterization of Italian ordinary buildings in urban areas. Front Built Environ. 9:ISSN 2297-3362. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2023.1129176.
   Google Scholar