Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 2485–2508 | Cite as

Calibration of a mechanics-based method for large-scale vulnerability assessment

  • Marta FaravelliEmail author
  • Barbara Borzi
  • Diego Polli
  • Marco Pagano
Original Research


This paper presents an analytical method for large-scale vulnerability assessment used in order to simulate damage scenarios corresponding to those observed during past earthquakes in Italy. The method, already published in the technical literature with the acronym SP-BELA (Simplified Pushover-Based Earthquake Loss Assessment), has been adopted to calculate the vulnerability of the Italian building stock classified as reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. The current paper describes the calibration of the method through the comparison of numerically calculated damage scenarios and data on observed damage collected during earthquakes occurred in Italy starting from the 1976 Friuli earthquake. The use of observed damage data allowed to validate the method and to add reliability to the calculation of damage scenarios. The damage scenarios are useful to plan the emergency response immediately after an earthquake. Finally, a Web Geographical Interface System tool that implements SP-BELA to calculate seismic risk and real time damage scenario is presented.


Capacity curve Survey form Calibration Damage scenario WebGIS platform 



The authors would like to express their gratefulness to Dr. Elena Speranza for the constructive discussion that lead to a way to validate SP-BELA method using observed damage data. The support of Dr. Francesco Giordano and Mr Flavio Bocchi in interpreting the observed damage data has to be gratefully acknowledged. Finally, particular mention is due to Dr. Gerard O’Reilly whose comments and observations have considerably improved the quality of this paper.


The current study has been beneficiary of Italian Department of Civil Protection funds. However, this does not necessarily reflect the ideas and official policy of the department.


  1. Akkar S, Sandkkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2014) Erratum to: empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12(1):389–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angeletti P, Baratta A, Bernardini A, Cecotti C, Cherubini A, Colozza R, Decanini L, Diotallevi P, Di Pasquale G, Dolce M, Goretti A, Lucantoni A, Martinelli A, Molin D, Orsini G, Papa F, Petrini V, Riuscetti M, Zuccaro G (2002) Valutazione e riduzione della vulnerabilità sismica degli edifici, con particolare riferimento a quelli strategici per la protezione civile. Rapporto finale 2002, Dipartimento della Protezione Civile-Ufficio Servizio Sismico Nazionale, RomaGoogle Scholar
  3. Benedetti D, Petrini V (1984) Sulla vulnerabilità sismica di edifici in muratura: proposta su un metodo di valutazione. L’industria delle Costruzioni 149:66–74Google Scholar
  4. Bindi D, Pacor F, Luzi L, Puglia R, Massa M, Ameri G, Paolucci R (2011) Ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian strong motion database. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1899–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(30):1057–1085. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borzi B, Pinho R, Crowley H (2008a) Simplified pushover-based vulnerability analysis for large scale assessment of RC buildings. Eng Struct 30(3):804–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borzi B, Crowley H, Pinho R (2008b) Simplified pushover-based earthquake loss assessment (SPBELA) method for Masonry buildings. Int J Arch Heritage 2(4):353–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borzi B, Crowley H, Pinho R (2008c) The influence of infill panels on vulnerability curves for RC buildings. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  9. Borzi B, Ceresa P, Faravelli M, Fiorini E, Onida M (2013) Seismic risk assessment of Italian school buildings. Comput Methods Earthq Eng 2:317–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borzi B, Ceresa P, Franchin P, Noto F, Calvi GM, Pinto PE (2015) Seismic vulnerability of the Italian roadway bridge stock. Earthq Spectra 31(4):2137–2161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D (1982) A statistical study on damage buildings and an ensuing review of the M.S.K.—76 scale. In: Proceedings of the 7th European conference on earthquake engineering, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  12. Cauzzi C, Faccioli E, Vanini M, Bianchini A (2015) Updated predictive equations for broadband (0.01–10 s) horizontal response spectra and peak ground motions, based on a global dataset of digital acceleration records. Bull Earthq Eng 13(6):1587–1612. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ (2004) A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 2(2):173–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crowley H, Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ (2008) Recent developments in the treatment of ground-motion variability in earthquake loss models. J Earthq Eng 12(S2):71–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Del Gaudio C, Ricci P, Verderame GM, Manfredi G (2015) Development and urban-scale application of a simplified method for seismic fragility assessment of RC buildings. Eng Struct 91:40–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Di Pasquale G, Orsini G, Pugliese A, Romeo RW (1998) Damage scenario from future earthquakes. In: The 11th European conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rotterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. DISS (2010) Working Group Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS), Version 3.1.1: A compilation of potential sources for earthquakes larger than M 5.5 in Italy and surrounding areas, INGVGoogle Scholar
  18. Dolce M, Masi A, Marino M, Vona M (2003) Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) including site effects. Bull Earthq Eng 1:115–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dolce M, Speranza E, Giordano F, Borzi B, Bocchi F, Conte C, Di Meo A, Faravelli M, Pascale V (2017) Da.D.O—a web-based tool for analyzing and comparing post-earthquake damage database relevant to national seismic events since 1976. In: Proceedings of the 17th ANIDIS conference, Pistoia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  20. Grünthal G (1998) European Macroseismic Scale (EMS 1998). Council of Europe, Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Sismologie, p 15Google Scholar
  21. Hancilar U, Çaktr E (2015) Fragility functions for code complying RC frames via best correlated IM–EDP pairs. Bull Earthq Eng 13(11):3381–3400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):391–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karantoni F, Tsionis G, Lyrantzaki F, Fardis MN (2014) Seismic fragility of regular masonry buildings for in-plane and out-of-plane failure. Earthq Struct 6(6):689–713. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2014) Fragility functions of masonry buildings. In: SYNER-G: Typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk. Springer, Dordrecht,
  25. Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of the current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:415–443. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Panagiotakos T, Fardis MN (2001) Deformation of R.C. members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Struct J 98:135–148Google Scholar
  27. Pitilakis KD, Karapetrou ST, Fotopoulou SD (2014) Consideration of aging and SSI effects on seismic vulnerability assessment of RC buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 12(4):1755–1776. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Restrepo-Velez LF, Magenes G (2004) Simplified procedure for the seismic risk assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  29. Ross TJ (1995) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. McGrawHill, NewYork ISBN 0 07 0539170 Google Scholar
  30. Silva V, Crowley H, Pinho R, Varum H (2014a) Investigation of the characteristics of Portuguese regular moment-frame RC buildings and development of a vulnerability model. Bull Earthq Eng 13(5):1455–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Silva V, Crowley H, Pagani M, Monelli D, Pinho R (2014b) Development of the openquake engine, the global earthquake model’s open-source software for seismic risk assessment. Nat Hazards 72(3):1409–1427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simões A, Milošević J, Meireles H, Bento R, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S (2015) Fragility curves for old masonry building types in Lisbon. Bull Earthq Eng 13(10):3083–3105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tsionis G and Fardis MN (2014) Seismic fragility curves for reinforced concrete buildings and bridges in Thessaloniki. In: The 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  34. Yepes C, Silva V, D’Ayala D, Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Meslen A, Crowley H (2016) The global earthquake model physical vulnerability database. Earthq Spectra 32(4):2567–2585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yucemen MS, Askan A (2003) Estimation of earthquake damage probabilities for reinforced concrete buildings. In: Wasti ST, Ozcebe G (eds), Seismic assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings, Springer Netherlands, NATO Science Series 29:149–164Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE)PaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations