Collecting and Managing Building Data to Perform Seismic Risk Assessment – Palestine Case Study

  • Antonella Di MeoEmail author
  • Marta Faravelli
  • Diego Polli
  • Marco Denari
  • Alessio Cantoni
  • Barbara Borzi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10405)


This paper describes a web interface with GIS functionality (WebGIS) that Eucentre (EUropean CENtre for Training and Research in Earthquake engineering) developed for SASPARM 2.0 (Support Action for Strengthening PAlestine capabilities for seismic Risk Mitigation) project [1].

The SASPARM 2.0 WebGIS is a simple and intuitive platform intended for people with different backgrounds, such as citizens, students, practitioners, governmental and non-governmental institutions. The final aim of the implemented WebGIS application is to calculate the seismic risk of residential buildings. Nablus has been taken as case study to demonstrate, implement, and calibrate project actions. To calculate the seismic risk, residential buildings data are collected. Such activity can be conducted by both practitioners and citizens who compile two standard forms that differ from each other only in terms of detail. The survey forms can be compiled directly on WebGIS, at the dedicated tabs, or through two mobile apps designed for the purpose. All filled forms are shown on the homepage map of the WebGIS platform. Starting from the collected data, the seismic risk of each single building is evaluated by combining the hazard and the vulnerability with its exposure. In particular, the seismic demand to which each building is subjected to is defined from the hazard curve. In the specific case study of Nablus, the hazard curve is obtained by referring to “West Bank and Gaza Strip: Seismic Hazard Map Distribution”. The structural vulnerability, instead, is quantified through fragility curves calculated with the mechanical method SP-BELA (Simplified Pushover-Based Earthquake Loss Assessment), modified to represent the building environment of Nablus.


Vulnerability assessment Seismic risk WebGIS platform Mobile app 



This research has been conducted within the project “ECHO/SUB/2014/694399 SASPARM 2.0 Support Action for Strengthening Palestine capabilities for seismic risk mitigation”, a project co-financed by DG-ECHO - Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection. We thank R. Monteiro, P. Ceresa, V. Cerchiello and I. Grigoratos (IUSS, Pavia) for the WebGIS section to retrofit and Prof. J. Dabbeek and his staff (An-Najah National University, Nablus) for structural information on Palestinian buildings.


  1. 1.
    SASPARM 2.0 Project: Support Action for Strengthening Palestine’s capabilities for seismic Risk Mitigation, DG-ECHO 2014, ECHO/SUB/2014/694399. SASPARM 2.0.
  2. 2.
    SASPARM Project: Support Action for Strengthening Palestinian-administrated Areas capabilities for Seismic Risk Mitigation, FP7-INCO, ID. 295122. SASPARM.
  3. 3.
    Rasulo, A., Testa, C., Borzi, B.: Seismic risk analysis at urban scale in Italy. In: Gervasi, O., et al. (eds.) ICCSA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9157, pp. 403–414. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21470-2_29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rasulo, A., Fortuna, M.A., Borzi, B.: A seismic risk model for Italy. In: Gervasi, O., et al. (eds.) ICCSA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9788, pp. 198–213. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-42111-7_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): FEMA 547 - Techniques for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, Washington D.C., United States (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deliverable D.C.1: Report on the identification of retrofit measures. SASPARM 2.0 Project, DG-ECHO 2014, ECHO/SUB/2014/694399 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    EUROCODE 8, prEN 1998-1: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borzi, B., Pinho, R., Crowley, H.: Simplified pushover-based vulnerability analysis for large scale assessment of RC buildings. Eng. Struct. 30(3), 804–820 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borzi, B., Crowley, H., Pinho, R.: Simplified pushover-based earthquake loss assessment (SP-BELA) method for masonry buildings. Int. J. Architectural Herit. 2(4), 353–376 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borzi, B., Di Meo, A., Faravelli, M., Ceresa, P., Monteiro, R., Dabbeek, J.: Definition of fragility curves for frame buildings in Palestine. In: 1st International Conference on Natural Hazards and Infrastructure, Chania, Greece (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grünthal, G. (ed.): European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). In: European Seismological Commission, sub commission on Engineering Seismology, Working Group Macroseismic Scales, vol. 15. Conseil de l’Europe, Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Luxembourg (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): HAZUS 99 - Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology. Technical Manual, Washington D.C., United States (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonella Di Meo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marta Faravelli
    • 1
  • Diego Polli
    • 1
  • Marco Denari
    • 1
  • Alessio Cantoni
    • 1
  • Barbara Borzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Eucentre - European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake EngineeringPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations