Building Inspection and Damage Data for the 2002 Molise, Italy, Earthquake

Abstract

Shortly after the October 31, 2002, Molise, Italy, earthquake, a widespread fitness-for-service and building damage assessment was launched. In two months, more than 23,000 buildings were inspected using a standardized damage assessment form. As many as 100 inspection teams, consisting of public servants and volunteer professionals, totaled approximately 80,000 person-hours. Analysis of the collected building type and damage data shows high-vulnerability masonry buildings with significant preexisting damage. With the sole exception of San Giuliano, the modal values of the observed damage occurred for the negligible-to-slight damage levels D=0 or D=1, with only a few buildings showing higher damage levels. Nevertheless, due to their high vulnerability, about 40% of the inspected buildings were unusable, with important consequences for the number of people needing shelter. The survey made it possible to determine the usability of about 12,000 buildings and the repairs needed for about 1,000 buildings.

Building damage assessment after the 2009 Abruzzi earthquake

“…8) with a trend opposite to that observed in previous earthquakes (Molise 2002, Etna 2002, when the inspections started in the most damaged areas. In the Molise 2002 and Etna 2002 earthquakes after one week from the event the resulting percentages almost coincided with the final ones (Goretti and Di Pasquale 2004;Goretti and Sortis 2003). In the L'Aquila earthquake percentages almost equal to the final ones were reached only about one month after the event, when the sample of the inspected buildings included about half of the final number (see Table 1).…”

“…The comparison of the average team productivity is reported in Table 2. The final productivities in the 2002 Molise (Goretti and Di Pasquale 2004) and 2009 L'Aquila earthquakes are quite similar and greater than in the 2002 Etna earthquake (Goretti and Sortis 2003). The time when the peak average (up to time t and over the teams) productivity occurred, T peak , is quite different in the three earthquakes, due to the different number of inspections carried out.…”

“…Note that the damage measure here introduced is somewhat different from the one assumed in some previous works (Di Pasquale and Goretti 2001;Goretti and Di Pasquale 2004), where the sum of all the possible damage levels to vertical bearing components, D i , times their damage extension, e i , was considered. This measure is not able to accurately identify partial and total collapses.…”

“…The assessment was carried out using the AeDES form (Baggio et al 2007; Goretti and Di Pasquale 2002). The form and its field manual (Baggio et al 2007) are based on the experience gained from several earthquakes (1997Umbria and Marche, 1998Pollino and 2002.…”

Empirical Damage and Actual Repair Costs on Masonry Private Buildings After L’aquila Earthquake

“…Then six levels, from 0 to 5, can be determined to represent the global damage index. In [8,9] starting from the procedure reported in [7] only the damages detected on the vertical structures to find a global damage index has been taken into account. In [10] the same approach has been assumed, but the damage extension on the structural components has not been taken into account.…”