Simplified Analytical/Mechanical Procedure for Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation and Loss Assessment of Buildings

Abstract

The crucial need to develop and implement simple and cost-effective repair and retrofit strategies and solutions for existing structures has been once again emphasized, if at all needed, by the recent catastrophic earthquake events. The significant socio-economic impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes sequence in 2010–2011 as well as of the “series” of independent events within few years in Italy (L’Aquila 2009; Emilia 2012; Central Italy 2016) have triggered a stepchange in the high-level approach towards the implementation of seismic risk reduction, introducing either a mandatory enforcement or significant financial incentives for a national-wide program to assess (and reduce by remedial intervention) the seismic vulnerability/capacity of the whole (non-dwelling) building stock, including safety and expected repairing costs (direct economic losses). This chapter provides an overview of the motivations, challenges and (possible) solutions for such a complex and delicate task with the intent to stimulate awareness, discussion and synergetic actions within the wider international community. Particular focus will be given to the development and on-going continuos refinement of a simplified analytical-mechanical methodology—referred to as SLaMA (Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis) method—as part of a proposed integrated methodology for either pre- and post-earthquake safety evaluation and loss assessment of buildings, in order to support the engineering community and stakeholders through the various steps of the decision making process of risk (assessment and) reduction.

Simplified Analytical/Mechanical Procedure for the Residual Capacity Assessment of Earthquake-Damaged Reinforced Concrete Frames

“…The proposed methodology relies on the well-established SLaMA analytical/mechanical simplified procedure ( [4,20]) by modifying the element capacity following the FEMA 306 [6] approach as proposed by Pampanin [21]. The proposed framework is independent of damage states and can be performed with observed damage using reference charts such as the ones contained in the FEMA 306 itself.…”

Energy-based procedures for seismic fragility analysis of mainshock-damaged buildings

“…Neglecting the impact of prior earthquake damage may lead to an underestimation of structural vulnerability and loss metrics, thus affecting decision-making for defining emergency planning strategies and insurance policies (e.g., de Quevedo Iñarritu et al, 2021). Moreover, a detailed assessment of the residual capacity of earthquake-damaged buildings to sustain subsequent seismic events is critical to support decision-making on both re-occupancy and repair vs. demolition, as well as for the selection, design, and implementation of suitable techniques to 'restore' the building to its undamaged conditions (e.g., Cuevas and Pampanin, 2017;Pampanin, 2021).…”

Analysis of Potential Disruptions From Earthquakes in Istanbul and 3D Model Based Risk Communication

“…Experts predict that a major earthquake with a magnitude larger than 7 will strike Istanbul within the next 30 years (62±15% chance) since the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake (Parsons et al 2000). Besides this, Istanbul has shown to be at risk to the cascading effects of earthquakes including fires, liquefaction and tsunamis (Alpar et al 2003;JICA and IMM 2002;Pampanin 2021). Contributing to the risk are the many vulnerable structures that are illegally built but legalised after issuing various amnesty laws, the high urban and population densities, the inadequate infrastructure for the large amount of traffic and the unbalanced socioeconomic society (Atun and Menoni 2014).…”