Advertisement

Building Vulnerability to the 2008 Ilia-Achaia Earthquake Induced Slides

  • Stavroula FotopoulouEmail author
  • Anastasios Anastasiadis
  • Kyriazis Pitilakis
Chapter

Abstract

The present paper, after providing a brief description of the recently developed analytical tool for assessing vulnerability of RC (reinforced concrete) structures to earthquake triggered earth slides, focuses on the exploration of the reliability and applicability of proposed procedure through its application to a real case study. In particular, the approach is implemented to a representative RC building located near the crest of the Kato Achaia slope where most of the structural damage was concentrated in consequence of the Ilia-Achaia, Greece 2008 (Mw = 6.4) earthquake. Both the structure and slope configuration are realistically reproduced using non-linear constitutive models to estimate the vulnerability of the reference building and to assess the validity of the developed methodological framework and the corresponding fragility relationships. In terms of numerical simulations, the analysis involves two consecutive steps: (a) estimation of the differential permanent deformation at the foundation level derived through a finite difference, non-linear, slope dynamic model and (b) static application of the computed differential displacement at the building ‘s supports via a fibre-based finite element (static time history) analysis. The proposed probabilistic fragility curves were found to adequately capture the simulated and recorded performance of the representative RC building affected by the slope co-seismic differential displacement.

Keywords

Vulnerability RC buildings Fragility curves Kato achaia slope Co-seismic landslide displacements 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work described in this paper was supported by the project SafeLand “Living with landslide risk in Europe: Assessment, effects of global change, and risk management strategies” under Grant Agreement No. 226479 in the 7th Framework Program of the European Commission. This support is gratefully acknowledged. Furthermore, the authors would like to express their sincere thanks to Professor George Athanasopoulos and Helen Pefani (University of Partas, Civil Engineering Department) for providing most of the data used for the specific study area.

References

  1. AGSO (2001) Natural hazards and the risk they pose to South-East Queenland. AGSO-Geoscience Australia. Digital report on CD-ROM, 389pGoogle Scholar
  2. Bird JF, Bommer JJ (2004) Earthquake losses due to ground failure. Eng Geol 75:147–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bird JF, Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ (2005) Assessment of building response to liquefaction induced differential ground deformation. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 38(4):215–234Google Scholar
  4. Bird JF, Bommer JJ, Crowley H, Pinho R (2006) Modelling liquefaction-induced building damage in earthquake loss estimation. Soil dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26(1):15–30Google Scholar
  5. BRGM (French Geological Survey) Software (1998) Cyberquake, version 1.1. User’s guide, OrleansGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Darendeli M (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Ph.D. dissertation, University of TexasGoogle Scholar
  8. Fotopoulou S, Pitilakis K (2011) An analytical approach for the vulnerability assessment of RC buildings subjected to earthquake induced ground displacements. In: Papadrakakis M, Fragiadakis M, Plevris V (eds) Proceedings of 3rd international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Corfu, 25–28 May 2011Google Scholar
  9. Fotopoulou S, Pitilakis K, Anagnostopoulos C (2011) Vulnerability Assessment of RC buildings due to earthquake induced slow moving slides. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Santiago, 10–13 Jan 2011Google Scholar
  10. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc (2005) FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua), version 5.0. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  11. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Margaris B, Papaioannou C, Theodoulidis N, Savvaidis A, Klimis N, Makra K, Karakostas C, Lekidis V, Makarios T, Salonikios T, Demosthenus M, Athanasopoulos G, Mylonakis G, Papantonopoulos C, Efthymiadou V, Kloukinas P, Ordonez I, Vlachakis V, Stewart JP (2008). Preliminary report on the principal seismological and engineering aspects of the Mw_6:5 Achaia-Ilia (Greece) earthquake on 8 June 2008, GEER Association Report No. GEER-013, http://research.eerc.berkeley.edu/projects/GEER/Post_EQ_Reports.html. Accessed Oct 2008
  13. Margaris B, Athanasopoulos G, Mylonakis G, Papaioannou C, Klimis N, Theodoulidis N, Savvaidis A, Efthymiadou V, Stewart JP (2010) Μw = 6.4 Achaia-Elia (Greece) earthquake on 8, June 2008 source characteristics, ground motions, and ground failure. Earthq Spectra 26(2):399–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Negulescu C, Foerster E (2010) Parametric studies and quantitative assessment of the vulnerability of a RC frame building exposed to differential settlements. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 10:1781–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pitilakis D (2009) Topographic irregularities and soil- foundation- structure interaction. In: Proceedings of 3rd Greece–Japan workshop: seismic design, observation, and retrofit of foundations, Santorini, 22–23 Sept 2009Google Scholar
  16. Remondo J, Bonachea J, Cendrero A (2008) Quantitative landslide risk assessment and mapping on the basis of recent occurrences. Geomorphology 94:496–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. SeismoSoft (2007) SeismoStruct—a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures, (online). www.seismosoft.com
  18. Uzielli M, Nadim F, Lacasse S, Kaynia AM (2008) A conceptual framework for quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to landslides. Eng Geol 102:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van Westen CJ, Van Asch TWJ, Soeters R (2006) Landslide hazard and risk zonation—why is it still so difficult? Bull Eng Geol Environ 65:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zêzere J, Garcia RAC, Oliveira SC, Reis E (2008) Probabilistic landslide risk analysis considering direct costs in the area north of Lisbon (Portugal). Geomorphology 94:467–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stavroula Fotopoulou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anastasios Anastasiadis
    • 1
  • Kyriazis Pitilakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations