Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implementing effects of site conditions in damage estimated at urban scale

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Local site effects due to geotechnical conditions modify seismic motions on surface. This implies that during a given earthquake, buildings located on soft sites may experience a higher damage than similar buildings resting on nearby rock sites. The aim of this study is to provide an estimation of the influence of site conditions on the buildings damage distribution. We combine an approach adapted from the Hazus methodology for the assessment of building damage, with the Borcherdt non linear site amplification factors, that enable to characterize the high and low frequency amplification as a function of VS30 (the average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m) and ground motion levels. Analysis of obtained results indicates that, seismic damage expressed by the normalized mean damage index depends not only on seismic shaking level and building typology but also on site conditions through the shear wave velocity proxy. A regression relationship is established between the seismic damage and both shaking levels and site conditions, aiming at presenting a simple, rapid tool for estimating this damage at urban areas. An index, the “damage increase ratio”, is proposed to quantify the increase of damage resulting from site effects, and its dependence on loading level and site conditions are quantified and discussed for the main building typologies present in Algeria. Depending on the building typology, the overall damage may vary within a range of 2–5 for moderate shaking (0.1 g) between hard rock and very soft soil, and within a range 1–1.5 for strong shaking (0.5 g). The reduction of the impact of site conditions with increasing shaking level is directly linked with the nonlinear soil behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

V S30 :

Average shear wave velocity over the upper 30 m

FEMA:

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Hazus:

Hazard United-States

PGA:

Peak ground acceleration

NIBS:

National Institute of Building Science

P[ds|S d]:

Probability of obtaining a specific level of damage ds for a given spectral displacement Sd

Φ[·]:

Cumulative normal distribution

\( \overline{S}_{d,ds} \) :

Average displacement value corresponding to the damage state ds for a specific building typology

β ds :

Standard deviation of displacement corresponding to the damage level ds, again for the considered, specific building typology

SD:

Slight damage

MD:

Moderate damage MD

ED:

Extensive damage

CD:

Complete damage

Fa :

The Borcherdt nonlinear site amplification factors at short period

Fv :

The Borcherdt nonlinear site amplification factors at intermediate period

Di :

Probability of damage of type i

DI:

Normalized mean damage index

DIR:

Damage increase ratio due to site effects

Sa :

Spectral acceleration

T:

Period in second

Sa @ 0.3:

Spectral acceleration (Sa) at 0.3 s

Sa @ 1:

Spectral acceleration (Sa) at 1 s

TA :

Left corner period of the spectral plateau

TAV :

Transition period between constant spectral acceleration and constant spectral velocity

TVD :

Transition period from constant spectral velocity to constant spectral displacement

M:

Moment magnitude

f c :

Corner frequency determined from Joyner and Boore relationship, as a function of moment magnitude

UBC:

Uniform Building Code

NEHRP:

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

EC:

Euro Code

IS:

Indian Standard code

NGA:

Next generation ground motion attenuation relationships

RESORCE:

Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe

GMPEs:

Next generation ground motion prediction equations

m a and m v :

Exponents vary as a function of input ground-motion level, in order to account for the non-linear soil behavior

V ref :

Reference velocity

SELENA:

Seismic loss estimation using a logic tree approach

URM:

Unreinforced masonry buildings with low (URML) and medium (URMM) height

C3:

Concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls with a low (C3L), medium (C3M) and high (C3H) height

C2:

Concrete shear walls with low (C2L), medium (C2M) and high (C2H) height

Sae :

Elastic acceleration spectrum

Sde :

Elastic displacement spectrum

Sai :

Inelastic acceleration spectrum

Sdi :

Inelastic displacement spectrum

μ:

Ductility factor

Rμ :

Reduction factor due to the ductility

TAV :

Transition period from constant spectral acceleration to constant spectral velocity

σ:

Standard deviation

R:

Coefficient of determination

G:

Shear modulus

ai :

Regression parameters for the mean damage index

bi :

Regression parameters for the increasing of the damage index

References

  • Abrahamson N, Atkinson G, Boore D, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell K, Chiou B, Idriss IM, Silva W, Youngs R (2008) Comparisons of the NGA ground-motion relations. Earthq Spectra 24(1):45–66. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2924363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agea-Medina N, Molina-Palacios S, Lang D, Ferreiro-Prieto I, Huesca J, Galiana-Merino JJ, Soler-Llorens JL (2017) sensitivity of structural damage to earthquake ground motion scenarios. The Torrevieja earthquake case study. Int J Comput Methods Exp Meas 6(5):921–932. https://doi.org/10.2495/cmem-v6-n5-921-932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assimaki D, Ledezma C, Montalva GA, Tassara A, Mylonakis G, Boroschek R (2012) Site effects and damage patterns. Earthq Spectra 28(S1):S55–S74. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) (2002) Indian Standard—criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1—general provisions and buildings (5th revision). IS 1893, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 39 pp

  • Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site dependent reponse spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthq Spectra 10(4):617–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouckovalas GD, Kouretzis GP (2001) Stiff soil amplification effects in the 7 September 1999 Athens (Greece) earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21(8):671–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00045-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boukri M, Farsi MN, Mebarki A, Belazougui M, Amellal O, Mezazigh B, Guessoum N, Bourenane H, Benhamouche A (2014) Seismic risk and damage prediction: case of the buildings in Constantine city (Algeria). Bull Earthq Eng 12:2683–2704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9594-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra AK, Goel RK (1999) Capacity demand diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Earthq Spectra 15(4):637–656. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doğangün A, Livaoğlu R (2006) A comparative study of the design spectra defined by Eurocode 8, UBC, IBC and Turkish Earthquake Code on R/C sample buildings. J Seismol 10:335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-006-9020-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolce M, Masi A, Marino M et al (2003) Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) including site effects. Bull Earthq Eng 1:115. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024809511362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolce M, Kappos A, Masi A, Penelis G, Vona M (2006) Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies. Eng Struct 28(3):357–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J, Akkar S, Ameri G et al (2014) Comparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12:341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9522-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC8 Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), EN 1998-1, eurocodes.jrc.eceuropa.eu/. Last accessed Feb 2016

  • Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16(3):573–592. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC FEMA (2003) HAZUS-MH technical manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington. www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus

  • FEMA (1999) HAZUS earthquake loss estimation methodology, technical manual. Prepared by the National Institute of Building Sciences for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus

  • FEMA 222A (1994) The NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulation for new buildings, including the NEHRP probabilistic ground motion maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Furumura T, Koketsu K (1998) Specific distribution of ground motion during the 1995 Kobe earhquake and its generation mechanism. Geophys Res Lett 25(6):785–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor N, Abrahamson NA, Atkinson GM, Boore DM, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell KW, Silva W (2014) Comparison of NGA-West2 GMPEs. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1179–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartzell S (1998) Variability in nonlinear sediment response during the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(6):1426–1437

    Google Scholar 

  • HAZUS-MH (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: earthquake model—technical manual. www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus

  • Hellel M, Chatelain JL, Guillier B, Machane D, Ben Salem R et al (2010) Heavier damages without site effects and site effects with lighter damages: Boumerdes City (Algeria) after the May 2003 Earthquake. Seismol Res Lett Seismol Soc Am 81(1):37–49. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.1.37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyner WB, Boore DM (1988) Measurement characterization and prediction of strong ground motion. In: Proceedings of earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II, pp 43–102. Park City, Utah, 27 June 1988. Geotechnical Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, New York

  • Kausel E, Assimaki D (2002) Seismic simulation of inelastic soils via frequency-dependent moduli and damping. J Eng Mech 128(1):34–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusunoki K, Tasai A, Teshigawara M (2014) Development of building monitoring system to verify the capacity spectrum method. In: Fischinger M (ed) Performance-based seismic engineering: vision for an Earthquake Resilient Society. Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol 32. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8875-5_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):415–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layadi K, Semmane F, Yelles-Chaouche AK (2016) Site-effects investigation in the city of Chlef (Formerly El-Asnam), Algeria, using earthquake and ambient vibration data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(5):2185–2196. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomnitz C (1997) Mexico, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Kobe: what next? Nat Hazards 16(2–3):287–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margottini C, Molin D, Narcisi SL (1994) Intensity vs acceleration: Italian Data. ENEA—IAEA, Historical Seismicity of Central—Eastern Mediterranean Region

  • Mebarki A, Boukri M, Laribi A, Farsi M, Belazougui M, Kharchi F (2014) Seismic vulnerability: theory and application to Algerian buildings. J Seismolog 18(2):331–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-013-9377-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev J (1962) Engineering seismology. Science Academy Press, Moscow

    Google Scholar 

  • Molina S, Lang DH, Lindholm CD (2007) SELENA v2.0—user and technical manual v2.0. NORSAR, Kjeller

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarrete B, Canales MD, Vera AV, Maldonado AAB, González LBR, Aguilar SE, Calderón EDV (1988) Damage statistics of the September 19, 1985 Earthquake in Mexico city. In: Beedle LS (ed) Second century of the skyscraper. Springer, Boston, pp 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-6581-5_56

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro M, Enomoto T, Yamamoto T, García-Jerez A, Vidal F, Bretón M (2008) Analysis of site effects and their correlation with damage distribution observed during the Colima (Mexico) earthquake of January 21, 2003. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 12–17

  • Peláez JA, Hamdache M, Casado CL (2005) Updating the probabilistic seismic hazard values of northern Algeria with the 21 May 2003 M 6.8 Algiers earthquake included. Pure Appl Geophys 162(11):2163–2177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-005-2708-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salameh C, Bard P-Y, Guillier B, Harb J, Cornou C, Gérard J, Almakari M (2017) Using ambient vibration measurements for risk assessment at an urban scale: from numerical proof of concept to Beirut case study (Lebanon). Earth Planets Space 69(1):60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-017-0641-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl RE (1989) Observations of the performance of buildings during the 1985 Mexico earthquake, and structural design implications. Geotech Geol Eng 7(1):69–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01552841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1969) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Report No. EERC 70-10 Earthquake Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California

  • Singh SK, Lermo J, Dominguez T, Ordaz M, Espinosa JM, Mena E, Quaas R (1988) The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985–a study of amplification of seismic waves in the Valley of Mexico with respect to a hill zone site. Earthq Spectra 4:653–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teves-Costa P, Oliveira CS, Senos ML (2007) Effects of local site and building parameters on damage distribution in Angra do Heroísmo—Azores. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(11):986–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theodoulidis N, Cultrera G, De Rubeis V et al (2008) Correlation between damage distribution and ambient noise H/V spectral ratio: the SESAME project results. Bull Earthq Eng 6:109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-008-9060-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trifunac MD, Todorovska MI (2000) Can aftershock studies predictsite amplification factors? Northridge, CA, earthquake of 17 January 1994. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19(4):233–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(00)00011-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargas YF, Pujades LG, Barbat AH, Hurtado JE (2013) Incremental dynamic analysis and pushover analysis of buildings. A probabilistic comparison. In: Papadrakakis M, Stefanou G, Papadopoulos V (eds) Computational methods in stochastic dynamics. Computational methods in applied sciences, vol 26. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5134-7_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vidic T, Fajar P, Fischinger M (1994) Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength displacement. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 23:507–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 117(1):89–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Z, Xu J, Kubota R, Yasuhiko W, Syozo K (2004) Collapse ratios of buildings due to the 1995 Kobe earthquake and interference between S-wave and the second surface wave at basin edge. Chin Sci Bull 49(2):189–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Part of this work has been supported by the project: “Prédiction du movement sismique et estimation du risqué sismique lié aux effets de site” 13MDU901 Tassili CMEP between Universities of Tlemcen (Algeria) and Grenoble (France). One of the authors (H. Dif) wishes to acknowledge the support of University of Djelfa. The authors wish to express their acknowledgment for these supports.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Risk Assessment and Management Laboratory (RISAM), Faculté de Technologie, Université Abou BekrBelkaïd, BP 230-13048, Tlemcen, Algeria

    Hamza Dif & Djawad Zendagui

  2. Faculté de Technologie, University of Djelfa, BP 3117, Djelfa, Algeria

    Hamza Dif

  3. Institut de Sciences de la Terre (ISTerre), CNRS, IRD, IFSTTAR, Université Grenoble-Alpes, Bâtiment OSUG C, CS 40700, 38058, Grenoble Cedex 9, France

    Pierre-Yves Bard

Authors
  1. Hamza Dif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Djawad Zendagui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pierre-Yves Bard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hamza Dif, Djawad Zendagui or Pierre-Yves Bard.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 128 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dif, H., Zendagui, D. & Bard, PY. Implementing effects of site conditions in damage estimated at urban scale. Bull Earthquake Eng 17, 1185–1219 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0512-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0512-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation