Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Pot
Current time: 08-17-2019, 11:33 PM
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: TAFATNEB
Last Post: TAFATNEB
Replies 0
Views 1101

Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Pot
#1
Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies

Author: Mauro Dolcea, Andreas Kapposb,∗, Angelo Masia, Gregory Penelisb, Marco Vonaa | Size: 1.9 MB | Format: PDF | Quality: Unspecified | Publisher: Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357–371 | Year: 2006 | pages: 15


[Image: info.png]

The prevailing Italian and Greek methodologies for seismic risk assessment are used herein to construct loss scenarios for the building stock
of a small city (Potenza, Southern Italy). The inventory of buildings of interest is obtained from a survey carried out after the 1990 earthquake that
struck Potenza and its hinterland, subsequently updated in 1999. About 12,000 buildings were surveyed in Potenza, using the Italian first level
survey form for damage and vulnerability evaluation. In the Italian methodology, a hybrid technique is set up to evaluate vulnerability, combining
an analysis of building typologies with expert judgement. The probabilistic distribution of damage is evaluated by assigning Damage Probability
Matrices (DPMs) from the literature. Besides the vulnerability classes A, B and C of the MSK-scale, the class D of the anti-seismic buildings
is considered and the relevant DPM is defined. Damage and economic loss scenarios relevant to dwelling buildings are constructed for three
reference earthquakes. Next, the hybrid methodology for seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete (R/C) and masonry buildings
developed at the University of Thessaloniki (Greece) is applied to the same building stock. The methodology combines available statistical data of
damage collected after past earthquakes with a systematic nonlinear analysis of various “model buildings”, representative of several vulnerability
classes. Similarities, as well as discrepancies, between the two methods are discussed in the light of the obtained results, and possible sources for
the discrepancies are suggested

[Image: download.png]
Code:
***************************************
Content of this section is hidden, You must be registered and activate your account to see this content. See this link to read how you can remove this limitation:

http://forum.civilea.com/thread-27464.html
***************************************


[-] The following 4 users say Thank You to TAFATNEB for this post:
  • zrilek, vardan, bridgeengineer, civilgen
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT USING AMBIENT VIBRATIONS: METHOD AND VALIDATION TAFATNEB 0 1,030 08-12-2014, 10:15 AM
Last Post: TAFATNEB
Vulnerability evaluation and seismic rehabilitation of steel building with semi-rigid TAFATNEB 0 1,151 05-09-2014, 11:22 AM
Last Post: TAFATNEB
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Modular Steel Buildings TAFATNEB 0 1,516 05-09-2014, 11:16 AM
Last Post: TAFATNEB
Damage of Bridges in 2008 Wenchuan, China, Earthquake TAFATNEB 0 1,416 05-03-2014, 09:29 AM
Last Post: TAFATNEB
Guideline for Post-Earthquake Damage Evaluation And Rehabilitation of RC Buildings in TAFATNEB 0 1,176 04-12-2014, 10:38 PM
Last Post: TAFATNEB



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)