Derivation of seismic fragility curves through mechanical-analytical approaches: the case study of the URM school buildings in Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy)

IF 3.8 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL
Sofia Giusto, Ingrid Boem, Sara Alfano, Natalino Gattesco, Serena Cattari
{"title":"Derivation of seismic fragility curves through mechanical-analytical approaches: the case study of the URM school buildings in Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy)","authors":"Sofia Giusto,&nbsp;Ingrid Boem,&nbsp;Sara Alfano,&nbsp;Natalino Gattesco,&nbsp;Serena Cattari","doi":"10.1007/s10518-025-02137-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Seismic events worldwide have shown that school buildings can exhibit vulnerability levels even higher than ordinary buildings. This highlights the urgent need for reliable risk analyses to guide decision-making in the implementation of large-scale mitigation policies. Developing seismic fragility curves that accurately reflect their typological and structural features is essential to achieve this. In this context, the paper compares two different mechanical-analytical methods, namely the “DBV-Masonry” and “Firstep-M_PRO”, which have been independently developed at the University of Genoa and at the University of Trieste, respectively. Among various possible methods, the mechanical-analytical approach is chosen for its computational efficiency in assessing large portfolios and its flexibility in capturing the features of specific buildings, such as schools (i.e. significant inter-storey height and spacing between internal transversal walls). Both methods are applied to the same sample consisting of 101 unreinforced masonry (URM) schools located in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy). One of key-goals of the paper is to provide a very comprehensive comparison of the similarities and differences between two methods for deriving seismic fragility curves which refer only to the global in-plane response. The impact of such an epistemic model uncertainty, together with the inter-building variability, is thus quantified and fragility curves are also validated against results from previous studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9364,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering","volume":"23 6","pages":"2611 - 2646"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10518-025-02137-6.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10518-025-02137-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Seismic events worldwide have shown that school buildings can exhibit vulnerability levels even higher than ordinary buildings. This highlights the urgent need for reliable risk analyses to guide decision-making in the implementation of large-scale mitigation policies. Developing seismic fragility curves that accurately reflect their typological and structural features is essential to achieve this. In this context, the paper compares two different mechanical-analytical methods, namely the “DBV-Masonry” and “Firstep-M_PRO”, which have been independently developed at the University of Genoa and at the University of Trieste, respectively. Among various possible methods, the mechanical-analytical approach is chosen for its computational efficiency in assessing large portfolios and its flexibility in capturing the features of specific buildings, such as schools (i.e. significant inter-storey height and spacing between internal transversal walls). Both methods are applied to the same sample consisting of 101 unreinforced masonry (URM) schools located in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy). One of key-goals of the paper is to provide a very comprehensive comparison of the similarities and differences between two methods for deriving seismic fragility curves which refer only to the global in-plane response. The impact of such an epistemic model uncertainty, together with the inter-building variability, is thus quantified and fragility curves are also validated against results from previous studies.

通过力学分析方法推导地震脆性曲线:弗留利-威尼斯朱利亚大区(意大利)URM 校舍案例研究
世界各地的地震事件表明,学校建筑的脆弱程度甚至高于普通建筑。这突出表明迫切需要进行可靠的风险分析,以指导实施大规模缓解政策的决策。开发准确反映其类型和结构特征的地震易损性曲线是实现这一目标的关键。在此背景下,本文比较了两种不同的力学分析方法,即分别由热那亚大学和的里雅斯特大学独立开发的“dbv -砌体”和“Firstep-M_PRO”。在各种可能的方法中,选择机械分析方法是因为它在评估大型组合时的计算效率和在捕捉特定建筑物(如学校)的特征(即显著的层间高度和内部横向墙之间的间距)方面的灵活性。这两种方法都应用于位于意大利Friuli-Venezia Giulia地区的101所无加固砌体(URM)学校的相同样本。本文的主要目标之一是对两种仅参考全局面内响应的地震易损性曲线的推导方法的异同进行全面比较。因此,这种认知模型的不确定性以及建筑物间的可变性的影响被量化,并且脆弱性曲线也根据先前的研究结果进行了验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 工程技术-地球科学综合
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
19.60%
发文量
263
审稿时长
7.5 months
期刊介绍: Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering presents original, peer-reviewed papers on research related to the broad spectrum of earthquake engineering. The journal offers a forum for presentation and discussion of such matters as European damaging earthquakes, new developments in earthquake regulations, and national policies applied after major seismic events, including strengthening of existing buildings. Coverage includes seismic hazard studies and methods for mitigation of risk; earthquake source mechanism and strong motion characterization and their use for engineering applications; geological and geotechnical site conditions under earthquake excitations; cyclic behavior of soils; analysis and design of earth structures and foundations under seismic conditions; zonation and microzonation methodologies; earthquake scenarios and vulnerability assessments; earthquake codes and improvements, and much more. This is the Official Publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信