An Improved Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Approach for Historical Urban Centres: The Case Study of Campi Alto di Norcia, Italy

Abstract

Seismic damage assessment is an extraordinary opportunity to evaluate the reliability of vulnerability and risk methodologies applied to historic masonry buildings, giving the possibility of enhancing and optimising mitigation and retrofit strategies. Vulnerability index methodologies are flexible and powerful tools for assessing seismic vulnerability on the urban scale, providing a first screening of the critical issues present in masonry buildings and a possible priority list for the following retrofit operations. Such approaches account for the buildings’ different structural characteristics, directly or indirectly influencing their seismic behaviour and measured through different weights and classes finally providing a vulnerability index. In this paper, we show the application of three well-known methodologies to Campi Alto di Norcia’s medieval city in Valnerina (Italy) stroke by the earthquakes of 24 August and 30 October 2016. The methodologies’ reliability is assessed, based on the observation of real seismic consequences and damages on the masonry buildings, and an optimised methodology is then proposed for the considered case study.

The Development of Health Capacity Index for a Semi-Quantitative Earthquake Hazards Risk Analysis with a Special Reference to the Lombok Earthquake Disaster 2018

“…Risk indexes have been developed in many forms, mostly based on hazard potential and vulnerability [11][12][13][14][15]. A semi-quantitative approach could be an easy and quick method for analysing hazard risks.…”

Assessing Earthquake Impacts and Monitoring Resilience of Historic Areas: Methods for GIS Tools

“…where µ D is the expected mean degree of damage for single buildings or set of aggregated buildings; the seismic hazard is represented using the macroseismic intensity I EMS-98 , according to the European Macroseismic Scale EMS-98 [29]; the seismic vulnerability of single or sets of aggregated buildings and structures is assessed in terms of the vulnerability V and ductility Q indexes; α and β are coefficients. Values of the coefficients α and β can be assumed as α = 6.25, β = 13.1; these values resulted by deriving Equation (2) from the damage probability matrices implicitly defined by EMS-98 [29] using a combined probabilistic and fuzzy-logic approach [20,21]. Some authors, i.e., [29,30], suggest to use β = 12.7 in lieu of β = 13.1 after repeating the derivation of Equation ( 2) under modified assumptions than the ones at the base of the original derivation of the macroseismic vulnerability curves [20,21].…”

“…Values of the coefficients α and β can be assumed as α = 6.25, β = 13.1; these values resulted by deriving Equation (2) from the damage probability matrices implicitly defined by EMS-98 [29] using a combined probabilistic and fuzzy-logic approach [20,21]. Some authors, i.e., [29,30], suggest to use β = 12.7 in lieu of β = 13.1 after repeating the derivation of Equation ( 2) under modified assumptions than the ones at the base of the original derivation of the macroseismic vulnerability curves [20,21]. A critical discussion on the resulting differences (that are indeed minor) while using β = 12.7 in lieu of β = 13.1 in Equation ( 2) is out of the scope of this paper and can be the subject of future research.…”

“…In particular, the relationship proposed by [54] allows us to obtain the Macroseismic Intensity estimation with regard to Mercalli Cancani Siberg Macroseismic Intensity scale I MCS [57]. A further correlation [58] is applied to convert I MCS to intensities measured according to the European Macroseismic Scale I EMS-98 [29], which is the official Macroseismic Intensity scale adopted in Europe and is the hazard input required in Equation (2).…”

Based on Historical Seismic Damage Data to Rapidly Assessment the Vulnerability of Structures in Rural Village

“…Whether it is empirical analysis or finite meta-analysis, the seismic vulnerability of building structures can be given. Romis et al (2021) used the building structure vulnerability index to evaluate the seismic structural vulnerability. However, both types of vulnerability analysis methods require a lot of time and cannot meet the needs of a wide range of buildings in rural villages vulnerability analysis.…”